Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

South Africa (Trial)

Mr. Brockway: I rise to present a Petition which has been signed by 217 students and members of the staff at Reading University. As it is a short Petition, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I read it and saved the time of the Clerk of the House in doing so. The Petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
We, the undersigned students and staff of Reading University, beg that Her Majesty's Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland take such action as they consider appropriate to implement the recent decisions of the General Assembly of the United Nations calling for the abandonment of the Rivonia trial and the immediate release of all political prisoners.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

ORDER OF THE DAY

LAW OF PROPERTY (JOINT TENANTS) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(ASSUMPTIONS ON SALE OF LAND BY SURVIVOR OF JOINT TENANTS.)

11.7 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move, in page 1, line 11 to leave out "or was".
For the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, we could, perhaps, discuss with this Amendment the following two Amendments:
In page 1, line 11, at end insert:
(2) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply with the necessary modifications in relation to a conveyance by the personal representatives of the survivor of joint tenants as they apply in relation to a conveyance by such a survivor.

In Clause 2, page 1, line 15, after "vendor", insert "or by his personal representatives ".

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

The Solicitor-General: I remind the House about Clause 1 of the Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), whose name appears with mine on the Notice Paper in support of these Amendments. This useful Measure, of which Clause 1 claims the most important part, deals with a difficulty in conveyancing practice which has been experienced for some time. Section 36 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, provided that every legal estate vested in joint tenants is held upon trust for sale. Therefore, there ought to be two trustees to convey the property and to receive the purchase money.
Where there was only one survivor it was seen that a difficulty arose. This was attempted to be dealt with by the Law of Property (Amendment) Act, 1926. That provided that the Law of Property Act, 1925, should not affect the right of a survivor to deal with the legal estate as if it were not held on trust for sale. That was an attempt to deal with the difficulty, but it was not satisfactory because the purchaser could not know


whether the joint tenancy had in fact been severed in equity before the survivor became solely entitled.
The object of this Bill, which after Second Reading received the support of all hon. Members in the Committee, is to enable the survivor to sell without appointing a second trustee for the sale.
By Clause 1 the last survivor could deal with the estate if he were solely or beneficially interested, because by the Clause a conveyance by a survivor as a beneficial owner would be good enough to protect the purchaser against any trusts affecting the purchase money, for example, where the joint tenancy had been severed before and there was only one survivor.
These Amendments are essentially drafting Amendments and are designed to make it clear that the personal representative of the surviving joint tenant can make a good title in exactly the same way as the survivor himself could have done. The problem clearly also faces a personal representative of a survivor and he has powers which in such circumstances are joint and several. In these circumstances it was thought that there should be given much clearer effect to what is clearly the intention of the promoters of the Bill that the personal representative should be in the same position as the survivor.
The Bill as originally drafted with the words "or was" in line 11 was an attempt to deal with this situation. However, on reflection it has been thought that it is not very satisfactory to depend, for this result of putting the personal representative in the same position as the survivor, on the expression "or was". It seemed to be too vague and it seemed better to spell out exactly what was required.
The Amendments accordingly provide for the deletion of the words "or was" and for the insertion of the words of the second of the three Amendments. The third of the three Amendments is consequential, as it is clearly necessary after the word "vendor" in Clause 2 to insert the words "or by his personal representative", bringing Clause 2 into line with Clause 1 in this respect.
For those reasons, I put forward these Amendments to put beyond doubt the obvious intention of the promoters of the

Bill, which was to see that the position of personal representatives is made perfectly clear, namely that they are in the same position as joint survivors.

Sir Barnett Janner: I offer my very sincere thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his law officers for the helpful manner in which they have acted at every stage of the consideration of this intricate subject.
You would not find it difficult, Mr. Speaker, but the average person who has not studied the law would find it very difficult to understand this matter. Consequently, it is not easily explainable to the House, but hon. Members can rest assured that an anomaly in respect of joint tenancies which must be remedied is being put right by the Bill. The Law Society has played a prominent part in this problem, whose complexity shows how people are misled when they are invited to believe that the law of property is so simple that it requires a person of no knowledge or of only slight knowledge of it to deal with conveyancing matters.
11.15 a.m.
The points with which we are specifically dealing in these Amendments were raised in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who made it clear that the Bill would be improved if certain words were inserted in the text. We recognise that a host of actions can effectively sever a joint tenancy in equity Some of our friends within and outside the House who are critical ought to tell us what that means. Only lawyers understand the significance There are circumstances which should place an intending purchaser in the position of knowing that a severance had occurred and that he was being asked to take a conveyance on the basis that the surviving joint tenant was the beneficiary entitled. It is with a view to making that as clear as possible, where it is possible to make it clear, that these Amendments are introduced, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not want in any way to obstruct the passage of this admirable Bill, but we ought to be careful that we get it right at the outset. The legislators in 1925 and 1926 failed to do so, and the hon. Member


for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) is now trying to put the matter right, as they failed to do as long ago as that.
I am a little worried about the wording of these Amendments. My first concern is about the words "with the necessary modifications" in the new subsection (2), but there is a more important criticism which goes to the root of these Amendments. Clause 1 was intended to deal with the survivor of a joint tenancy selling, but it is obviously necessary to go a little further than that and to give his personal representatives the right to sell when the survivor dies. I was under the impression that as the law stood personal representatives would have had the right to sell without appointing another trustee, but this makes it quite clear that they can.
The whole basis of Clause 1 when the survivor sells is that he is selling as beneficial owner and that he states that he is selling as beneficial owner, which in law are words of art introducing certain legal assumptions. Personal representatives would not be selling as beneficial owners and these words would not appear in the conveyance by the personal representatives, so that that part of Clause 1 would not take effect.
In order to bring Clause 1 into operation, therefore, the personal representatives will be required to make a statement—I presume in the conveyance itself, but at any rate a statement signed by themselves—to say that the deceased survivor of a joint tenancy was solely and beneficially interested. It will not be easy for the personal representatives to make that statement. It means, to start with, that there will have been no mention of any severance of the joint tenancy on the conveyance to the joint tenants. If there is such a memorandum, the personal representatives of the survivor will not be able to say that the surviving joint tenant was beneficiary entitled.
There may be many occasions when the personal representatives will not know one way or the other whether there has been a severance or whether the joint tenancy existed at the date of death. There can be a severance of the joint tenancy by one of the joint tenants mortgaging his share or assigning his share. That would create a severance of the joint tenancy. Even a contract to assign or charge his undivided share

would cause a tenancy in common—a severance of the joint tenancy. If one joint tenant gives notice to the other joint tenant that he wishes to sever under Section 36 of the Law of Property Act, severance would come about.
How are the personal representatives of the surviving joint tenant to know whether any of those things have happened? They are not speaking of something which their testator did. They have to speak of something which the other joint tenant did not do. They may have no knowledge of whether he assigned his share or charged his share or agreed to sell his share or agreed to charge it. They will be put into some difficulty under the Clause in making the necessary statement that the surviving joint tenant was beneficiary entitled.
However, with that criticism, I think it right to provide for the case where the personal representatives are able to say that in all honesty and with a knowledge of the past history of the property. The Amendment will provide for cases in which the personal representatives know the history of the property and the history of the joint tenants, but it is very limited, because on many occasions they will be afraid to make the statement when they have not got the facts relating to the first joint tenant who died.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The Amendment seems to be sensible, but I should like to ask one or two questions. If one of the owners has parted, either by mortgage or by some other act, with the tenancy—in other words, if there has been what I understand to be an act of severance—am I correct in saying that one of the joint tenants has, by an act unknown to the other, alienated to some extent his share either by a mortgage or by some form of a deed, or a promise to sell or in consideration of something else? Am I correct in saying that it then becomes a tenancy in common? Under Section 36 of the Law of Property Act the Amendment would not then apply, because it applies only so long as they are joint tenants. Am I correct in that? If one of the joint tenants has done something to alienate, as far as I understand it, the Amendment would not apply. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) would


make this point clear. I do not think that it affects the value of the Amendment.

Sir B. Janner: May I reply to the hon. Gentleman by intervention now, because I believe I have no right to reply to him directly later? The intention is that, where it is not clear that there has been a severance or where that cannot be ascertained, the position of the title should not be impaired. Cases where it is known or where it can be ascertained would be outside the scope of this. It is intended that, where it is not known that the title has been given over to somebody else, the title should not be a bad one.

Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was acting on that assumption. I should have made it clear to the House that I was basing the whole of my point on that assumption.

Sir B. Janner: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot reply to him later.

Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman can reply, by leave of the House.

Mr. John Silkin: The Amendments are designed to meet a point I raised in Committee and on which I felt strongly. My point was that there might be occasions when severance would take place—there are, I believe, five possibilities of severance taking place without the survivor of the joint tenants being aware that it has taken place—but when it might be possible that the purchaser was aware of the severance. In such circumstances I did not think that it was justifiable that he should be able to take advantage of the Clause.
This is a balance. All of us want to make conveyancing procedure as simple as we can. We want to make it as fair as we can. Although I accept what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, namely, that severance might occur and that a purchaser might take advantage of it, whereas as the law stands today he would not be able to, I am not sure that that is a bad thing. On the contrary, provided that there is good faith in the purchase, I think it is right that the inquiries to be made by

a bona fide purchaser should be as few and as simple as possible. I am a member of a profession which is sometimes derided because it is said that we try to make things more complicated. On this occasion we are trying to make them more simple.
The main advantages of the Amendments are these. First, if there is a case of severance of which the survivor of a joint tenancy is aware, that will be endorsed by a note or memorandum. In that event, the Clause will not take effect. The second point deals with one which I raised specifically in Committee, which was the case where the joint tenant who was not the survivor had become bankrupt, a fact which was well known to the intending purchaser but not to the survivor of the joint tenants. I will not detain the House by saying how this might arise. Suffice it to say that it could arise. The Amendment clearly and unequivocally prevents the operation of the Clause in such a case. I am very satisfied that this is so. This leaves only those cases of unintentional severance—

Mr. Graham Page: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to the right Amendment. He is referring to the proposed proviso to the Clause. As I understand it—I stand to be corrected, Mr. Speaker—this Amendment is not under discussion at this moment.

Mr. Silkin: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, we are taking the first three Amendments on the Notice Paper together.

Mr. Speaker: No. I am sorry if there has been some confusion. My understanding will have to govern the matter. We are discussing the first and third Amendments in page 1, line 11, and the Amendment in page 1, line 15.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in thinking that we shall have a separate debate on the second Amendment in page 1, line 11?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly, if the House wishes. I have to wait to hear if anybody proposes that we should have a multiple debate. As far as I know, we shall have a separate debate.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Silkin: In those circumstances I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Crosby, but it does happen, as I think, he is aware, that the interplay of arguments in fact overlap the whole of these groups of Amendments. In the circumstances, perhaps I can delay a little of my fire until later in the proceedings.

Mr. Fletcher: Might I say a word before we part with these Amendments, because I am sure, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and other hon. Members have indicated, it is important that we should try to get this right and, I hope, put this Bill in a form in which we all understand what is being done as a consequence of these Amendments.
I think that is the more important, because this Bill did not have a Second Reading debate and I do not think that the particular point raised by these Amendments was really canvassed in any detail in Committee. Therefore, I am anxious to make sure that I understand it, and I hope that either the Solicitor-General or perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) will have another opportunity, with the leave of the House, to try to elucidate what still seems to me to be in doubt.
As I understand it, this Bill and these Amendments are designed primarily to protect purchasers who have acquired transfers of property from a survivor of two or more joint tenants. It has been indicated that there may be circumstances in which neither the surviving joint tenant himself and still less his personal representative know when a sale takes place whether the other joint tenant has taken some steps to produce a severance. There will obviously be some circumstances in which such facts are known, and that situation is dealt with in an Amendment which we have yet to discuss.
If we apply our minds to those cases in which there is nothing on the title and nothing on the documents to indicate whether the severance has taken place but there may unknown to the survivor have been a severance brought about by the other joint tenants, the question that I think the House would like to be clear about is this. Are we right in thinking that it is the intention

of the Bill in those circumstances to legislate so as to give the purchaser a good title if he takes a conveyance from the survivor conveying as beneficial owner, and in the case of the legal personal representatives if they convey not as beneficiary owners, which they obviously cannot be, but following a recital that the survivor was the beneficial owner at the time of his death? If I am right in thinking that, I suppose that it follows that there may be cases in which while a purchaser acquires a good title under this Bill the interest of the other joint tenant or, indeed, perhaps the interest of some third party who has acquired some right either by contract or charge from the other joint tenant will be defeated.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that is altogether quite as the hon. Gentleman has expressed it. He will, of course, have a right against the proceeds of sale in the hands of the personal representatives. We are not by this Bill depriving the chargee of the half share of his right to the money and which can still go against the proceeds of sale.

Mr. Fletcher: When I said "defeated", I meant defeated in the sense that he will not be able to set aside the title which the purchaser has acquired by the conveyance. Where as at present he would have some rights against the property itself as a result of this Bill, if he had acquired some rights unknown to the survivor or, indeed, perhaps known to the survivor but not recorded. While we are by this Bill giving very sensible protection to the purchaser, the rights of the other joint tenant or perhaps of a third party to acquire the rights from him will be reduced in the sense that in future they will not be able to dispute the title which the purchaser has acquired, but they will be restricted to such rights as they may able to exercise against the proceeds of sale.
I think that it is important that that position should be clearly understood. In saying that, I do not for a moment dissent from the proposition that the major interest should be to secure the validity of the title to property and thereby to simplify conveyancing, but I think that the House should be aware of the inferential consequences as a result of these Amendments.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I think that the hon. Member has made the position much clearer. Would he agree that all that is happening is that the benefit that the new owner has got is an unfettered title and absolute right? Would he not also agree, as I think the House should be aware, that anyone who has acquired a right, in some sort of mortgage or anything else, has no right or a very substantially reduced right because he cannot take action against the property where the money is. All that he can do is to try to trace the people involved in the distribution of the money.

Mr. Fletcher: That is what I was trying to say and my impression is that the position is as the hon. Member has stated.

The Solicitor-General: I must not have made it clear to the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Slikin) that I was dealing with just these three Amendments which really relate to the condition only of the personal representative. They are to make clear that the personal representative should not be in any difficulty, and I shall explain why he might have been if we have not, as I believe we have now done, made it quite clear that he stands in the same position as the joint survivor.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is right. This is a Bill which is a complicated matter and which did not receive a Second Reading debate, although we had a very useful period in Committee. All hon. Members who have spoken—of which only one apart from myself is not a member of that branch of the profession which deals with these matters—do so with a very high degree of hesitation. Clause 1 is to ensure that the last survivor can deal with the estate if he is solely and beneficially interested because the conveyance by the survivor as beneficial owner will be good enough to protect the purchaser against any trusts.
The position of the personal representative is this. On the death of the sole surviving joint tenant and the appointment of the personal representative, the whole interest in the title of the land vests in the personal representative, who can freely dispose of the land in the course of his duties and administration and, unlike trustees, he, as the

sole surviving personal representative, can by himself give a valid receipt. That appears in Section 27 of the Law of Property Act, 1925.
On the other hand, the sole surviving joint tenant whose joint tenancy has been severed in equity—I touch on this matter now, although we will be coming to the question of severance more in the next Amendment—has lost his right of survivorship, and on his death the property vests in his personal representatives as trustees and, therefore, the personal representatives are in the same difficulty as the survivor. It was to make it quite clear that the personal representative gets from the Bill the same advantage that is given to the surviving joint tenant, that these Amendments have been moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: On a point of order. With respect to the Solicitor-General, I interrupt the debate to ask you if you could help us, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday I asked for your guidance as to what would be the position of this House if on Friday, a day on which it was not possible to move the Adjournment of the House, the House learned of the sentences in the Rivonia trial.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House yesterday gave an undertaking that he would discuss with the appropriate Minister the possibility of making a statement at the appropriate moment. Since we have now heard the verdict in that case, about 10 minutes ago—which is that life sentences have been passed on all the accused, who have been convicted—may I ask whether application has been made by the Foreign Secretary for leave to make such a statement today?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene like this, in the middle of an Order of the Day. To do so is quite wrong and improper.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Further to that point of order. Might I ask you for an assurance that, if a statement is not made today, one will at least be made on Monday?

Mr. Speaker: Not now, and I could not give that assurance. There is no machinery for it to be given now.

Mr. Fletcher: Further to that point of order. Would you give the House the benefit of your guidance on this point, Mr. Speaker? Are hon. Members right in thinking that should a Minister of the Crown wish to make a statement on this matter, as was promised on Wednesday, it would be possible for him to make such a statement this afternoon or at 4 o'clock, if not earlier?

Mr. Speaker: I shall have to consider the position if and when an application is made. We must continue our consideration of the Bill now.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11 at the end to insert:
Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply if, at any time before the date of the conveyance by the survivor—

(a), a memorandum of severance (that is to say a note or memorandum signed by the joint tenants or one of them and recording that the joint tenancy was severed in equity on a date therein specified) had been endorsed, on or annexed to the conveyance by virtue of which the legal estate was vested in the joint tenants; or
(b) a receiving order in bankruptcy made against any of the joint tenants, or a petition for such an order, had been registered under the Land Charges Act 1925, being an order or petition of which the purchaser has notice, by virtue of the registration, on the date of the conveyance by the survivor.

The words which I am moving to be inserted in the Clause are in the nature of a proviso. To put the matter shortly, the words provide that a purchaser cannot rely on this Clause if a memorandum of severance—and here we come to the subject of severance which we were inadvertently discussing before—has been endorsed on the original conveyance to the joint tenants or if the severance results from a bankruptcy which has been registered and of which the purchaser has notice.
11.45 a.m.
There should be clearly in the Bill some protection for the interests of those deriving title from a beneficial joint tenant whose interest has been severed. This matter was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), among others, in Committee, and reference has been made to it today.
The effect of the Amendment—because, in my recommendation to hon.

Members, what was pointed out by the hon. Member for Deptford in Committee was completely correct—is that a purchaser will not be able to claim the protection of this Clause if a memorandum of severance is endorsed on the original conveyance. The second part of the proviso applies, if the beneficial joint tenancy has been severed as a result of a bankruptcy and the bankruptcy petition has been registered. That in many ways speaks for itself, as the hon. Member for Deptford pointed out in Committee.
It is right to emphasise that where the title to land is registered the law has for long been that provided there is no restriction on the register, the sole surviving joint tenant is entitled to deal with the land on the footing that he is solely and beneficially entitled, but a registered joint tenant who severs the beneficial joint tenancy may at any time have a restriction entered. The effect of that is to cancel the power of the sole survivor to deal freely with the land.
Bankruptcy was also discussed in Committee. That must, technically, sever a beneficial joint tenancy, and the petitions and receiving orders in a bankruptcy are registrable as land charges, as all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate will appreciate. It is obviously desirable that this principle should apply so as to protect the interests of beneficial joint tenants.
Having considered what was said in Committee, along with the remarks made this morning, I recommend that this proviso, which I hope sets the matter out with reasonable clarity, will satisfy hon. Members that these matters should be dealt with in the Bill. As has been pointed out, it is important that we should get the Measure right and I hope that this will be regarded as an improvement on the original Bill, with respect to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner).

Sir B. Janner: Having heard the opinion of a learned counsel in the matters, may we consider the opinions of persons who are in the solicitors' profession and who have occasion to deal with these points quite often; on whom responsibility for not dealing with them rests, much to the relief of learned counsel.


There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has assisted considerably by pointing these out to the House thus enabling us to adjust the position. After all, a solicitor who is not sufficiently diligent, knowing there to have been a severance, to have advised his client that an endorsement should be put on the document will find himself in difficulties. One who did not examine the necessary records to find out whether there was a receiving order which affected the title would also find himself in considerable difficulty.
But a layman could not be expected to understand. A lot of nonsense is spoken in various places about a layman with no legal training being able to deal with a position like this, and I am quite certain that if people really appreciated what was involved they would understand it to be a highly technical matter, affecting immobile property. Even while we are debating, hon. Members on both sides are raising points which disturb them in relation to wording, and quite rightly; we should have made fewer court cases if everything was clear cut.
In the circumstances, it is very important that the memorandum should be endorsed on the appropriate document as and when the position is known, and it is also very important that a proper inquiry should be made with regard to receiving orders in bankruptcy before a transfer is complete. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for having produced this Amendment.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Am I correct in thinking that this is not necessary when receiving orders are not registered? If they are registered, it would be tantamount to a fraud if the purchaser were given a clear title, because he has been given proper notice with the note that the order in bankruptcy has been registered as a charge under the Land Charges the order in bankruptcy has been registered, in which case the prospective purchaser would get a good title.
With regard to paragraph (a) of the Amendment, the correct endorsement of the memorandum of severance may or may not have been made, and there are two points which I should like to have cleared up. If it has been endorsed,

once again it would be quite wrong, and a fraud, if the prospective purchaser were to take in spite of notice. Presumably these paragraphs will operate only if the notice has been made clear and, as far as I can see, cannot cover any transactions that have not been registered. If it were a registered title, presumably these notices should have been registered on the deeds. I am not quite sure about this, but that strikes me as the probable position. We are not trying to make it easier to perpetuate fraud, but to make sure that, in reasonable circumstances, a prospective purchaser gets good title, with remedy not against the purchaser, but against someone else.

Mr. Silkin: I feel a little diffident, Mr. Speaker, that with your indulgence and that of the House I appear to be having two bites at the cherry, but I am comforted by the thought that I am in fairly distinguished company in having spoken to the wrong Amendment; that it has occurred in my own profession and also in the other branch of the law. Having made the most of the points I wished to on this Amendment a few minutes ago, I propose only to deal as well as I can with what the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) has said.
I think that he is wrong in saying that it would be a fraud to take a conveyance where a receiving order in bankruptcy, for example, has been registered under the Land Charges Act, because the doctrine of notice is that of notice actual or constructive. It may very well be that we are dealing with a case where a layman might take a property, and if he were to do this he might not know that he should make the appropriate searches. I hasten to say that I cannot imagine that any solicitor would not, in those circumstances, make the appropriate searches, but there might be occasions when an ordinary purchaser might not have done so. Therefore, I do not think that the question of fraud arises—

Dr. Alan Glyn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite correct, but I was thinking of what he said earlier. I think that anyone who embarked on such a transaction without getting the advice of someone in the hon. Member's profession would be most unwise.

Mr. Silkin: I would endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said on that.


I talk without the book, but I think that it is right that a receiving order might not be registered, but this is a question of balance. We want the purchaser to have as simple a part as possible in collecting good title. That was the purpose of the 1926 legislation which we are now only trying to put right. In Committee, I suggested other words—perhaps more global words—than those in the Amendment but, on examining the Amendment, I felt that it covered everything I had in mind, and for those reasons I was very happy to be associated with it.

Mr. Graham Page: In order to apprecite the intention of the Amendment one has to look at the first line of Clause 1, which refers to Section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act, 1925. That subsection deals only with joint tenancies that have been severed, so that all we are really thinking of in Clause 1, and this proviso which amends it, is the case where joint tenants of a legal estate are tenants in common beneficially and the other parties are not aware of that fact.
Section 36 is very relevant when we are considering this Amendment, and subsection (2) states:
No severance of a joint tenancy of a legal estate, so as to create a tenancy in common in land, shall be permissible, whether by operation of law or otherwise, but this subsection does not affect the right of a joint tenant to release his interest to the other joint tenants, or the right to sever a joint tenancy in an equitable interest whether or not the legal estate is vested in the joint tenants…
It goes on to say how one joint tenant can bring about a severance by notice to the other joint tenant, and then we have the paragraph that was added under the Law of Property (Amendment) Act, 1926:
Nothing in this Act affects the right of a survivor of joint tenants, who is solely and beneficially interested, to deal with his legal estate as if it were not held on trust for sale.
So the Law of Property (Amendment) Act, 1926, dealt with the case where there are, in fact, joint tenancies but, in conveyancing the difficulty is that one cannot tell whether or not they are joint tenancies.
12 noon.
The Bill therefore proposes to set the purchaser's mind at rest on that, provided that there is no memorandum endorsed

on the conveyance of the joint tenants that there has been a severance since they acquired the property. But the Amendment still does not deal with the problem which was raised by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) in Committee. What is the position if there is no memorandum endorsed on the conveyance to the joint tenants and there is no receiving order registered and yet the purchaser is aware that there has been a severance?
To take, for example, paragraph (b) which deals not only with a receiving order in bankruptcy but with a petition. I think that I am right in saying that it is unusual for a petition to be registered as a land charge. When it becomes a receiving order it is automatically registered by the Official Receiver.

Sir B. Janner: The answer to that point is in the Clause, in the words
of which the purchaser has notice".

Mr. Page: To get the matter right, perhaps I may be allowed to read the whole of the paragraph which says that if
a receiving order in bankruptcy made against any of the joint tenants, or a petition for such an order, had been registered "—
and if there is such a receiving order then obviously a survivor cannot sell as a beneficiary—
under the Land Charges Act 1925, being an order or petition of which the purchaser has notice…
Does that mean that if it is not registered and yet he has notice of it he will be unable to take a good title from the surviving joint tenant? I am not sure from the wording of the Amendment whether that is the case.
Let us consider cases which may arise quite apart from bankruptcy. The prospective purchaser may know, or perhaps ought to know if he has taken ordinary steps to know, that there has been a severance. In practice it is for the purchaser to draft the conveyance from the survivor of the joint tenants and in drafting it one presumes that he would put in a recital to say that the vendor is beneficially entitled to the whole of the property. He would draft the conveyance so that the vendor sells as beneficial owner. Must he go further and ask for a specific requisition whether the vendor can convey as beneficial owner or sign


a document in which there is a recital that he is wholly beneficially entitled?
I do not know to what extent the purchaser is still under obligation to use ordinary diligence to discover whether or not there has been severance. Can he rely entirely on the fact that there is no memorandum of severance on the conveyance and that whatever he may know and whatever inquiry he may have made in the normal way does not matter? Can he take it as gospel truth, if there is no memorandum of severance on the conveyance, that he can take the conveyance from the surviving joint tenant? I hope that that will be the case. It would simplify conveyancing. I hope that that is the effect of the proviso now being moved.

Dr. Alan Glyn: A point has been made on the words in paragraph (b)
of which the purchaser has notice".
I construe that as being constructive notice. In other words, if the thing has been registered and he has gone through the normal process of search he must have had notice. I hope that my hon. Friend will clear that up.

Mr. Page: As I read the Amendment it means
of which the purchaser has notice, by virtue of the registration…
If he has notice by any other means than registration he is not bound by that notice. If, on the other hand, it is registered but not personally noticed he has had constructive notice of it which will bind him in law.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not happy about this last point. If that interpretation is correct I should have thought that the words were unnecessary and that it would have been sufficient for the proviso to protect the position in which either a receiving order in bankruptcy or a petition had been filed and registered. If the position is that that is to be the operative event which is to prevent Clause 1 coming into effect, and if it is the view that such registration produces constructive notice, I find it very difficult to understand what is the value in the Amendment of the last two lines.
If they are left in the Bill at all, the courts will presumably have the task of trying to give some meaning to them, because

the courts will not think that Parliament has put in words which are merely otiose. I invite the Solicitor-General to consider the matter because it may be sowing the seeds of trouble for some future date.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member on this point, but it seems to me that although the last two lines may well be unnecessary, and particularly the words
of which the purchaser has notice
I do not think that this destroys the earlier words because it is pretty clear that there must be registration.

Mr. Fletcher: The answer may possibly be, and I speak with some hesitation, that there is some virtue to be found in the last few words
on the date of the conveyance by the survivor.
It may well be that the material question is the date on which the purchaser has notice. While I support the Amendment and I think that it will be very valuable for all future cases, I am inclined to think at present that it may produce considerable inconvenience when we come to consider Clause 2 and the retrospective part of the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I do not share the anxieties and concern of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I should have thought that the language of the proviso makes it clear. Always in any complex matter the criticism can be made that in discussing or reciting it one is not being very simple. I do not pretend that this is simple, but I hope that it is clear. What it sets out to say is that where there is no memorandum or petition the purchaser gets a good title under the Bill whatever he may know.
If there has been any severance the joint tenant has to make sure that there is a memorandum of severance. The moral therefore is that if one has severed one must make sure that one has endorsed that severance on the original conveyance. I think that on reflection the House will agree that it is right that that should happen. If a person does not bother to do it or seek to do it and the memorandum does not appear he must suffer the consequences.
With regard to the date, I think the hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon.


Friend's intervention was indeed correct. As he says, the words are:
… on the date of the conveyance by the survivor.
I hope the House will think that this is a sensible way of dealing with the matter of severance which is, indeed, a difficult matter and has caused problems with some of which this Bill seeks to deal. I suggest that the insertion of the proposed proviso in Clause 1 will be of assistance and will make the matter much clearer to a prospective purchaser.

Sir B. Janner: I think that by this time the House will be satisfied that the matter has been dealt with fully. There is only one point that I should like to add. The onus of placing a notice of severance on the document rests with the person who has the benefit of that severance, and consequently he could not be heard to complain if the notice were not placed in the manner suggested.
Secondly, I cannot imagine any official receiver failing to do what he is asked to do or what it is assumed he will have done by virtue of this proviso—that is, to register the fact that a receiving order has been made. I hope that will allay any misgivings in the minds of those who have raised the question. We want to make the position clear, instead of persons having to incur a considerable amount of expense in appointing new trustees.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 11, at end insert:
(2) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply with the necessary modifications in relation to a conveyance by the personal representatives of the survivor of joint tenants as they apply in relation to a conveyance by such a survivor.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 2.—(RETROSPECTIVE AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move in page 1, line 12, to leave out from the beginning to "a" in line 15 and to insert:
Section 1 of this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st January 1926, and for the purposes of that section in its application to a conveyance executed before the passing of this Act ".
This is in effect a drafting Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you have overlooked the fact that you did not put the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Speaker: On consideration of a Bill, I not only do not put it but cannot.

The Solicitor-General: I was saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in Committee said that he was not sure whether the word "since" in the Clause includes the date mentioned or whether the date should be 31st December, 1925. He went on to say that many conveyances were deliberately made on 1st January, 1926, when the new law came into operation and he said that this might apply to many conveyances. What therefore he was saying—and if I may say so respectfully, correctly saying—was that it was not clear whether the expression "since 1st January, 1926" was apt to include a conveyance which had been executed on 1st January, 1926.
The Bill sets out:
The provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have had effect since 1st January, 1926…
In Committee my hon. Friend asked whether those words were apt to include a conveyance executed on 1st January, 1926. He also said that the expression:
before the Act comes into force
was somewhat inappropriate for a Bill which does not specify an actual commencing date. The form of words in the Amendment is intended to correct those minor difficulties without changing the sense or the effect of Clause 2.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: The Solicitor-General said that this was a mere drafting Amendment and I have no doubt that it may well have been so intended. But in view of what has already taken place, and the Amendments that we have previously made, it seems to be far more than a drafting Amendment and to raise a quite serious point of substance.
First, the language of the Clause has been changed. Whereas in its original form it said:
The provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have had effect since 1st January, 1926…
it is now limited to providing:
Section 1 of this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st January, 1926 ".
I think the House will observe that the whole structure of the Bill has been


changed by reason of the Amendment which we have introduced into Clause 1. These questions of retrospective legislation are always particularly difficult.
For the reasons which my hon. Friends have given in Committee, we are obviously trying to introduce certainty into the law with regard to the future. But it becomes much more complicated when we endeavour in a Bill to say that something that is going to apply to the future shall be deemed to have been the law since 1st January, 1926. The original intention of giving this retrospective effect to the operation of the Bill was to introduce some certainty into legal titles which may have been debatable or disputable. As I understand it, this Bill would not be necessary unless it were the fact that some people since 1926 have mistakenly or otherwise obtained titles to property which may well have been defective.
Therefore, I think it was very laudable intention to remove that doubt and to say that the law shall always be deemed to have been as we are now making it. That argument would be conclusive if Clause 1 had stood as originally drafted, because then there would not have been any doubt about the matter at all. But we have now introduced a proviso and, instead of saying that in all the circumstances the purchaser shall—omitting the unnecessary words—acquire a good title from a survivor, we are qualifying that and saying that in addition he will acquire a good title only provided certain things happen. When we come to attempt to give retrospective effect to a Clause with a proviso, it means that any future purchaser desirous of dealing with the title to the land in question will no longer be able to rely on the certainty that retrospective validity had been given to all titles. He will now be put on inquiry to see whether the proviso operated between 1926 and 1964. This vitiates the main object of giving certainty.
I shall give an example. In 1965, a person wishes to purchase land from someone who, since 1926, had acquired it from a survivor to a joint tenancy under a title which would have been defective apart from the Bill. He would have been in no possible doubt about the legal position had there been no

proviso to Clause 1. However, now that there is a proviso and the Clause is given retrospective operation, it means that some future purchaser of that property will not be sure whether his vendor had a good title or not, because the purchaser will have to go back and inquire whether, when his vendor bought the property, any of the circumstances set out in the proviso applied. This may be a relatively easy matter as regards branch (a) of the proviso, but with regard to branch (b) it will become much more complicated because the subsequent purchaser will then have to go back and ascertain whether, if, for example, his vendor bought the property in 1930, that vendor then had constructive notice of a receiving order in bankruptcy or a petition registered under the Land Charges Act. This will be a much more difficult and more complicated operation.
Although I have no doubt that the intention behind the Amendment is laudable, I think it right to observe that, whenever we embark upon purporting to give retrospective effect to new legislation, difficulties may well be encountered.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I thought that I was clear on this matter after my right hon. and learned Friend spoke, but I am not sure now. It seems that we are creating two types of case, according to what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has said. One type arises when the transfer has taken place between 1925 and now and the property is subsequently transferred to a new purchaser. The other arises in connection with purchases of property now, there being no question of these provisos operating earlier. I am completely muddled. It seems that, by putting the provisos in, we have created two categories, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will seek the opportunity to explain the matter further.

Sir B. Janner: I do not think that there need be much worry about this point. The object of the Bill is to clear up a matter, which has caused and which could in future cause trouble, by requiring the appointment of another trustee in certain instances. What is intended by the retrospective proposal is that the position of those who have taken transfers which, at a later stage, might be thought not to have conferred a good title upon them shall also be


protected. In fact, anyone who had taken the trouble to seek advice on the matter would undoubtedly have been protected because, if there is an endorsement on the deed, he would know what had happened. If a receiving order had been made, the lawyer responsible for not examining the records would be in a rather bad situation. A question could arise only in the case of a layman who, in respect of a title to a joint tenancy, had overlooked a receiving order.
I cannot imagine that anyone would try to accept a title in which a joint tenancy was involved without seeking legal advice. With all due respect, to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I do not think that the point he raised arises. These provisions are intended to clarify the position and to remove unnecessary queries. They will do so and will give purchasers and their successors the satisfaction of knowing that they have a proper title. That is all.

The Solicitor-General: I said that this was a drafting Amendment because it does no more than put into other words the original intention of the promoter of the Bill. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) pointed out that there might be doubt about the wording to give effect to Clause 2 in regard to past conveyances. On examination, it was agreed that that was a perfectly good point and that the matter should be spelt out very much more clearly than it had been originally.
Clause 1 relates to future cases, conveyances by survivors as beneficial owners being good enough to protect the purchaser against any trusts affecting the purchase money. Clause 2 deals with past cases. A statement by the vendor that he was solely and beneficially interested is good enough to clear the title. Those were the objects of the two Clauses. It was pointed out in Committee that the wording in relation to past conveyances did not with sufficient clarity include the 1st January, 1926, when very many conveyances were entered into, and, on reflection, I thought it right to advise the House that the Amendment should be made. I understand that the promoter of the

Bill agrees and I, therefore, commend the Amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 15 after "vendor", insert:
or by his personal representatives."—[The Solicitor General.]

Clause 3.—(EXCLUSION OF REGISTERED LAND.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out "not" and insert "with the necessary modifications "
Clause 3 provides:
This Act shall not apply to any land the title of which has been registered under the provisions of the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936".
In Committee, I questioned the reason for excluding registered land from the benefits to be brought about the Bill, and by this Amendment I endeavour to bring registered land within the compass of the Bill, with the necessary modifications.
12.30 p.m.
If I understand the present position correctly in respect of registered land, when joint tenants purchase and seek to be entered as proprietors on the register they complete a cover form which the profession knows as Form A.4, on the back of which it is said:
If the transfer or assent is to joint tenants it should be stated whether or not the survivor of them can give a valid receipt for capital money arising on a disposition of the land.
There is a space for answering "Yes" or "No", and this answer is normally given by the solicitor acting for the joint tenants who are seeking to register their title.
If the answer is "Yes", in effect the solicitor is saying that the purchasers have purchased as joint tenants, that there is no severance of their interest, and that the survivor will be able to sell because he will be wholly beneficially entitled to the property both in law and in equity. If, on the other hand, the answer is "No ", a restriction is entered on the register in the following words:
No disposition by one proprietor of the land (being the survivor of joint proprietors and not being a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered except under an order of the registrar or of the court.
The question whether the survivor of joint tenants of registered land can give


a title to a purchaser of that land depends entirely upon the answer which the solicitor, acting for the joint tenants when they purchase, gives on form A.4.
At any time after that purchase one of the joint tenants may have severed the joint tenancy, and provision is then made for that fact to be entered on the register. But all this comes about merely by the exercise of a discretion by the registrar. He is given that discretion by virtue of section 58 (3) of the Land Registration Act, 1925, which says:
In the case of joint proprietors the restriction may be to the effect that when the number of proprietors is reduced below a certain specified number no disposition shall be registered except under an order of the court, or of the registrar after inquiry into title, subject to appeal to the court; and, subject to general rules, such an entry under this subsection as may be prescribed shall be obligatory unless it is shown to the registrar's satisfaction that the joint proprietors are entitled for their own benefit, or can give valid receipts for capital money, or that one of them is a trust corporation.
The whole thing depends upon the order of the registrar, from which one can appeal to the court—an order which is made by the registrar at his own discretion after he has investigated the title, as the subsection empowers him to do. But he does not investigate the title at all. All that he does is to accept the answer on Form A.4 as justifying the surviving joint tenant being able to sell or being unable to sell, according to the answer "Yes" or "No" on the form.
The registrar has dealt with this by his discretion over the years, and in the Bill we are saying that these benefits shall not apply to registered land. I have the fear that if we read Clause 3 into the preceding Clauses the registrar in, future may say, "Parliament has said that the sort of thing that I have been doing in the past is not to apply in the future ".
Clause 3 provides that the Bill shall not apply to registered land. Therefore, referring back to Clause 1, we might read it as follows:
the survivor of two or more joint tenants shall not in favour of a purchaser of the legal estate be deemed to be solely and beneficially interested
or, in Clause 2, quoting from the Amendment already made,
Section 1 of this Act shall not be deemed to have come into force on 1st January, 1926, so far as registered land is concerned.

Clause 3 deliberately provides that the Bill shall not apply to registered land. As I understand it, the Clause has been introduced because the registrar, in his discretion, has in the past carried out just the sort of procedure which the Bill applies to unregistered land. If we now say that that sort of procedure is not to apply to registered land we may be destroying the beneficial effect of the exercise of the registrar's discretion that has taken place in the past.

Sir B. Janner: We have taken into consideration the points made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) whose contributions, especially on legal matters, are so valuable. The matter has been thoroughly examined by the Law Society and myself, with counsel's advice. The hon. Member need have no fear that by inserting the Clause we shall in any way detract from what has been the position hitherto in respect of registered land. On the contrary, in a sense this provision is a compliment to the efficient way in which the position has been met in that regard.
I want to tell the House what the position is in respect of registered land. The insertion of this Clause was deemed necessary after very careful consideration. The procedure under the Land Registration Act, 1925, and under the rules, in our view made the extension of the provisions of the Bill to registered land unnecessary. We always try our best to reduce the verbiage in Acts. It is true many legal matters are complicated, and the use of a "but" may make all the difference in a document. Lawyers are often wrongly accused of using unnecessary verbiage, and this is an attempt to make the position less complicated.
Under Section 58 of the Land Registration Act, 1925, a procedure is introduced which enables the proprietor of registered land to place restrictions upon the transfer of that land. The restrictions which may be imposed are set out in that Section. Subsection (3) of that Section, however, carries the matter much further, and lays down that in the case of joint proprietors the restriction may be to the effect that when the number of proprietors is reduced below a certain specified number, no disposition will be registered without an order of the court, and such an entry is obligatory unless it is shown to the registrar's satisfaction,


inter alia, "that the joint proprietors are entitled for their own benefit ". The result of this subsection is that the surviving joint tenant cannot transfer unless he shows, to the registrar's satisfaction, that he and his now deceased joint owner held the property jointly and beneficially.
In the case of registered land no difficulty arises since probably, quite unwittingly, the Land Registration Act cured the lacuna in the Law of Property Act. But it cured it only in respect of registered land.
In practice, what happens is that when, either on a first registration or a transfer, a joint proprietorship arises, a restriction on disposition is placed upon the register unless either the joint proprietors or their solicitor make a declaration that the joint proprietors hold the property jointly and beneficially. If a change takes place and there is a severance so that they no longer hold jointly and beneficially, either or both of the joint proprietors can apply to the registrar to impose the necessary protective restriction.
The conclusion is that the extension to registered land is unnecessary, and secondly, that the Bill will have the effect of bringing the procedure for unregistered land very much closer to the registered land procedure. I hope that in these circumstances, the hon. Member for Crosby will reconsider his proposal and withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: If the last joint tenant has died, the personal representative of the deceased survivor of the joint tenants is concerned. Under the Bill, we are giving certain benefits in that event which do not seem to apply at present to registered land.

Sir B. Janner: I do not think that I am in agreement with the hon. Member in that respect. I think that those benefits do apply to registered land. In any event, if the hon. Member feels seriously about the point, there will be a further opportunity elsewhere of putting it forward. I am sure that the hon. Member knows the procedure.

The Solicitor-General: It is useful that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) raised this matter in Committee and put down his Amendment, because it required close examination. I assure him that I have

given close examination to the point which he has raised.
On reflection, I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) that the Amendment is unnecessary because, as has been pointed out, the difference between registered and unregistered land is such that the mischief which the Bill seeks to cure is not experienced in the case of registered land. There has had to be this complex, important Bill to deal with the position of unregistered land, because it does not have the advantage which registered land possesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has recited Section 58(3) of the 1925 Act and I do not have to deal with that again. In effect, the position appears to me to be that the Amendment is unnecessary because registered land does not suffer from the difficulties which unregistered land has, and it is the intention of the Bill to put unregistered land in the same position as registered land in this respect.
The matter has been carefully considered. I know that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West has considered it carefully. I therefore ask my hon. Friend whether he feels it necessary to persist in the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I feel reassured by the words of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) and of my light hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.44 p.m.

Sir B. Janner: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like, first, to thank again the Solicitor-General and hon. Members on both sides for the help which they have given with regard to the Bill. It deals with technicalities which are not easily understandable. It has been clearly demonstrated here this morning that a Bill of this nature could not possibly have been handled without the skill and the knowledge of lawyers and without the training that a lawyer has to undergo before he is allowed to practise.
Many people complain that fees are high. That may well be true. The Law Society has, for quite a time, been examining how legal procedure can be


simplified in various respects so that the fees for conveyancy shall be reduced, not that they are excessive at present in consequence of the amount of work involved and the "know-how" and knowledge that is entailed.
The situation in this case is that at the time when the whole of the property law was being revised, even lawyers of great experience overlooked difficulties which eventually were seen to arise. To understand the law, and particularly real property law, a student has to undergo five years of careful training, if he studies for the profession of solicitor, and a barrister has to study for many years so that he may become acquainted with the intricacies which are bound to arise in general and concerning immobile property in particular.
Everybody who wants to know about the position with regard to real property in any code of law, whatever it might be—and this has been the experience for centuries; it is not a matter of days—will realise that one cannot deal with the thousand and one complications which arise in respect of real property without having a large series of laws applying to these matters.
In England, we are met with the question of common law, equity, the various interests that arise and the intricacies which are created by the desires of various people in relation to their holding of property, each of which interests has to be carefully studied by those who have to incorporate the wishes of the individual concerned in relation to his property in a document necessary to meet the situation.
Today, we are dealing with a technical Bill on a highly technical subject. I make no bones about it. It is law for the lawyers; but to every practising solicitor, it is vastly important. The number of those who own their own homes multiplies year by year and in many cases the conveyance is taken in the joint names of the husband and wife. That is an understandable, cosy, domestic arrangement, but to the solicitor who has to deal with the sale when one of the partners dies this domestic arrangement has created pitfalls for the unwary.
Under the Bill, these problems will have gone. As I have said before, this

is a lawyers' law. It might make no impact upon the man in the street—or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it will have some impact on, say, the man in the Clapham omnibus. Perhaps he will realise that so much has been said, not only in the national Press, but even in the confines of this House, about the simplicity of conveyancing of how it can be done by the office boy or by the town hall or according to the fashionable "do-it-yourself" principle when, sincere as those people may be, they are ill-informed. Conveyancing, as I have said, is, and always will be, a technical job for the specialist.
This Bill sweeps away a small part of the heap of dust of forty years. There is still much more that can be done, but fortunately a start has been made. The Law Society, which, incidentally, originally initiated this Bill, have, entirely on their own initiative, formed a working party composed of expert conveyancing practitioners to examine the whole of the law and procedure of land transfer. Perhaps as a result of their efforts all the dust which has been created by dealings the effect of which were not anticipated some forty years ago, perhaps a hundred years ago, will be swept away, and the extent of the work which now of necessity has to be done will be radically reduced, to the benefit of the public, to those whom my profession try to serve—the general public.
I think it would perhaps be a useful thing if some of the critics were to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates which have taken place on the Bill to see whether they can then honestly say that in the circumstances which of necessity must prevail with regard to dealings in immovable property it is safe to hand the matter over to persons who are not professionally trained. In the olden days we used to see at fairgrounds a hefty fellow drawing teeth while a drum was being sounded to drown the groans of the poor fellow whose teeth were being taken out. That has gone. I dare say that in most of the cases he may have drawn the teeth all right without harm to the person concerned but in many others complications arose. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon?

Sir Douglas Glover: I was only going to say that solicitors are much more difficult to get rid of than teeth.

Sir B. Janner: Well, that is what I was talking about before. But no, I really think that the passing of jibes, although good-humoured, which have been passed across the Floor of the House in respect of the legal profession ought to be considered beforehand, because they do create a quite wrong impression.
However, I am grateful to the House for the manner in which they have assisted in relation to this Bill and all concerned. I have very much pleasure indeed in moving its Third Reading.

12.52 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) upon piloting his Bill through all its stages? I suppose that at least three of us ought to have declared an interest about the Bill, at the very beginning of the debate, as being practising solicitors speaking on a Bill which will undoubtedly have the effect of simplifying conveyancing and, we hope, the ultimate effect to the benefit of the public, when further law reform has taken place, of reducing costs.
This is a law reform Bill. It did not originate in any Lord Chancellor's Department. It did not originate in any official law reform committee. It did not originate, if I may perhaps have a party political dig, with any high-powered law reform commissioners as suggested, I understand, by the policy of the party opposite. No, this Bill originated and was initiated, as I am sure the hon. Member will agree, by the Law Society—the solicitors' trade union, if you like. This is significant. The Law Society has set up a working party on the law and practice of conveyancing with the object of simplifying conveyancing and eventually making it cheaper to the public. Perhaps if we had more time for Private Members' Bills of this sort from—if I may say so—a practising solicitor who knows what he is talking about, who knows how to reform the law, then these reforms could be more rapidly brought about.
This Bill completely refutes the general idea which is, often perhaps teasingly, put about that solicitors want to make the law more complicated, that their whole object in life is to retain and even increase the mysteries of their craft. This really is a silly idea. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I

may make a personal reference for a moment, I have had the honour of piloting Private Members' Bills through the House, the whole object of which was to simplify the law. Indeed, the practising solicitor is always looking for reforms of that sort, and here in this Bill we have a reform of that sort brought about by a practising solicitor, and initiated by the Law Society, for the simplification of the law relating to joint ownership.
Anyone who has listened to the debates on this Bill, in Committee and again today, would agree that the law needed simplifying. I think that any listener would agree, too, that this is a branch of the law which is too full of pitfalls and potholes to be left to the amateur draftsman, the sea lawyer, the barrack room barrister. There has been a lot of stupid, uninformed criticism lately about solicitors' conveyancing costs. The criticism comes from those who do not know and have never tried to find out the work which is involved in conveyancing or the knowledge which is necessary. This Bill deals with a typical example of when professional knowledge is required, a conveyance to joint tenants, a conveyance from the survivor of joint tenants. It touches, too, on the problem of severance, tenancies in common, and so on.
Perhaps it may be asked, why do lawyers want all these complications about the Ownership of just an ordinary house or just an ordinary bit of land? Why do lawyers want all this complication? It is not the lawyers who want it. It is the public who want it. Here in this Bill we are dealing mainly with two very normal ways of holding property, one social and one commercial. One circumstance in which this Bill will have the most effect is where property is vested in a husband and wife. That is, as I say, a social instance of benefit brought about by this Bill in the very normal way of holding property, jointly by a husband and wife. The other, the commercial aspect of this, is the holding of property by partners as part of partnership property. These are two instances in which the Bill will have the greatest benefit in simplifying conveyancing.
Is the lawyer to say to the public, "You shall not hold property like this,


because if you do it increases the one hundred and one things I have to look at while investigating the title and therefore you will never get a reduction in conveyancing costs "? Is that what he is to say? Indeed, I could perhaps have said the one thousand and one things he has to investigate when considering titles to property, acting for either the vendor or the purchaser. We shall not reduce the costs of conveyancing unless we can reduce investigation of titles, and that is exactly what this Bill tries to do, even though it is in a narrow field at present.
As the law on conveyancing stands at present, I think the House will agree that the solicitor earns the £41 a week which is the average earnings of a solicitor after eight years from his entry upon his career, and after spending five years of those eight earning nothing as an articled clerk. This £41 a week compares very favourably, from the public's point of view, with the £53 a week of a doctor of similar years' standing and the comparable civil servant with £45 a week. These figures were given in the Financial Times in November last. It is interesting to note that, despite the very great increase in the last ten years in the work of investigation of title on any one conveyance, an increase by reason of the many new ways in which local authorities can place encumberances on individuals' property, solicitors' incomes have risen less than 50 per cent. in that period compared with a rise of nearly 100 per cent. for comparable civil servants, 100 per cent. for accountants and 150 per cent. for university lecturers and general medical practitioners.
Within the moderate reward that conveyancing solicitors get for their services one could increase their production of conveyances and thereby reduce the cost of each conveyance by saying, for example, that no piece of land should be owned by more than one person, that one should not have more than one interest in any piece of land, and that there should be no joint tenancies in land and no leases, mortgages or settlements. But surely, although that might reduce the work involved in conveyancing and, therefore, reduce the cost to the public, it would be wrong to deprive a husband and wife of the right to hold property jointly, partners of the right to hold

partnership property, and so on. So what we must do is continually to try to smooth out the complications which arise as by-products of those methods of owning and holding property. That is what the Bill does in a narrow field. It simplifies the results of joint ownership and makes it easier and less complicated to transfer the title of property when the joint ownership has ceased.
Again I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West on bringing forward the Bill. I am sure that it will be beneficial not merely to the administration of the law but to the public in the most important transaction which lawyers have to undertake, the transfer of the homes of the people.

1.3 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: I should not have had the courage to rise and address the House on the technicalities of the Bill, but, having listened to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who was honest enough to say that the Bill was produced by the Law Society which was the trade union of solicitors, I thought that the two hon. Members were giving notice of a claim to the British public for an increase in their remuneration.

Sir B. Janner: For a decrease.

Sir D. Glover: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech in my own way, my hon. Friend said that it would be a decrease as a result of the Bill, but at the same time he made it clear that there was a feeling among solicitors that, as their remuneration had gone up only 50 per cent. in recent years compared with the remuneration of other professions, they were grossly underpaid. I felt full of sympathy for my hon. Friend when he quoted the figures for civil servants, doctors and so on. If solicitors want an increase, I will try to justify it to my constitutents, though in most cases my constituents feel that our legal profession does pretty well for the work it does.
I must be honest and say that my opinion of the legal profession has risen enormously through listening to the debate. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby have made me more


clearly aware than I was of the intricacies of conveyancing and of the problems with which they are confronted with joint ownership and so on. I think that the Bill, as far as I understand it, is a very useful Measure, and I think that hon. Members should be congratulated upon bringing it forward.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West and I have travelled in foreign parts. I do not know whether the conveyancing problem is as complicated in this country as it is in some other parts of the world. We were together in one place where we discovered not only that the olive trees were in joint ownership but that in many cases ten people owned one olive tree and ten other people owned the fruit on it. I do not know quite what sort of legal document might be produced under those conditions and how much one would charge, because the value of the tree itself is comparatively small. This shows that, as my hon. Friend said, a great deal of the complication and the legal activities arise from what we foolish ordinary members of the public have done in the past in creating a situation in which it must be a complicated legal matter to make ownership clear and concise.
On the technicalities of the Bill, I am perhaps very courageous in rising to speak on the Third Reading. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West mentioned that he hoped that the people on the Clapham bus would take an interest in our proceedings as a result of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), as a layman, tried to join in our proceedings, but I think that the hon. Member for Leicester, Northwest and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby have killed him off, because he departed before we reached the Third Reading. [Interruption.] Is this a private war or can we all join in?

Mr. James MacColl: I was just saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) that I do not think the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) is a layman.

Sir D. Glover: I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham is a solicitor.

Mr. Graham Page: He is a barrister.

Sir D. Glover: Barristers deal with things on a much higher plane. As a barrister, my hon. Friend appears to have withdrawn from the fight. That shows that I have even more courage than I thought I had in the first place in entering this forbidden garden of legal practice. For a layman to speak on a Bill of this sort takes a great deal of courage.
Seriously, I regard the Bill as a useful Measure. I join in the thanks offered to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, and I hope that they will appreciate that the things that I have said about their profession were said in good heart and that really I hold them in very high regard.

1.8 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I welcomed the Bill when it came to Standing Committee C, and I do so again. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) upon having introduced it and upon having piloted it through to this stage. I do not know whether when he first spoke in the Standing Committee he thought that he would have a difficult or an easy task, but I do know that he has piloted the Bill with considerable skill.
I am sure that the hon. Member will pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and to his hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), because I am sure that this is a much better Bill now than when the hon. Member first rose to speak in the Standing Committee.

Sir B. Janner: I entirely endorse what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says.

The Solicitor General: I do not know whether when he rose to speak in the Standing Committee the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West thought that he would have to discuss olive trees or perhaps even, though he raised this subject himself, the beating of a drum while someone's teeth were pulled. But it perhaps reveals the expertise which is present in the House of Commons that we can have in discussion of a matter such as this the assistance of practising solicitors in this branch of the law in which they are particularly expert.
Although this is, and has been, a complex and complicated discussion, never-


theless, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, this is a matter which seriously affects many people throughout the country. If one has a complex and sophisticated society, one is bound to have a complex and sophisticated system of law. Many people ask for simplicity, and complain that there are too many difficulties in trying to understand legislation, but that is necessarily so when one has a society organised such as ours is. In a dictatorship where there is no law, or in a primitive society where there is only a primitive law, things are different, but with our system we must have a complex and sophisticated system of law.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West has done a service by introducing the Bill, and with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, and his hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford, I have no doubt that this Measure will be of the greatest value to practising solicitors, and ultimately, and indeed most importantly, to those who seek their services. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman.

Sir B. Janner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made one important omission, but of course he could not say this himself. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the extremely helpful way in which he and his Department have assisted in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADOPTION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

1.12 p.m.

Mr. George Forrest: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a short but most important Measure, and I hope that it will be adopted by the House.

Sir Douglas Glover: When I came into the House this morning, I was hoping to be able to take part in the debate on the Sunday Observance Bill, but I am happy to be here now that this Bill has come up for its Third Reading.
Life works in a funny way. Until this year I had had very little close connection with the system of adoption. This year one of my greatest friends has adopted a dear wee baby, and the other day another of my greatest friends used my name as a sponsor when he and his wife wanted to adopt a child. It therefore seems appropriate for me to say that I regard this as a very useful Measure, and that what it does needed doing.
The Bill improves the situation regarding adoption, and applies virtually the same procedure to every part of what I would call the British Isles, in other words, Guernsey, Jersey, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the United Kingdom.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) is not in his place, because during the Second Reading debate I supported what he said. He wished that the Bill was wider in its scope, and that it eased the system of adoption.
Nearly all adopted children are illegitimate. The houses to which they go are better than those in which they have to live if they are not adopted, but at the moment the conditions of adoption are so stringent that many worthy couples are not successful in their efforts to adopt a child. These couples are deprived of the happiness which they would enjoy as parents, and the child whom they wish to adopt has to continue to live in an institution or in some other organisation.
I know that what I have said is perhaps strictly out of order on the Third Reading debate of a Bill which is designed to deal with a particular problem or anomaly in the adoption law.
This is a worth-while Measure as far as it goes, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest) on introducing it. I wish it Godspeed.

1.15 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I apologise for only just having entered the Chamber, but I have taken part in the discussions during the various stages of the Bill, and I should like to make a few comments on it and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest) for introducing it.
A large number of Amendments were tabled to the Bill during the Committee


stage, but they were dealt with in almost record time. That is a tribute to my hon. Friend, because this is a complex Measure. I hope that today the House will give it its Third Reading.
During the Second Reading debate I think that nearly all hon. Members on both sides of the House were concerned to increase the scope of our existing adoption laws to cover certain matters which were not covered by the general law. I think that hon. Members were also concerned to ensure that the system of adoption was not so loose that the chances in life of those who were adopted were not adversely affected in any way.
There are many people who would make extremely good parents, but who, through no fault of their own, have no children. This is due to what one can only describe as the ill-fortune of nature, but in many cases it is not realised that this is no reflection on the parents. It is one of those biological things which prevent otherwise normal people from having children. It is to that category of people that the House has rightly addressed itself when considering this question of adoption.
I think that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will agree with me when I say that the number of people who would like to adopt children is in excess of the number of children available for adoption. To some extent this is a good thing, because it means that those responsible for the adoption procedure can select the adoptive parents, and it is a tribute to the societies and to the voluntary organisations who are responsible for selecting prospective parents that only in rare cases do these adoptions go wrong.
During the Second Reading debate I said something which was not entirely clear. I said that we should not be too strict in our interpretation of the law. I think that the whole approach to adoption should be on the basis of the suitability of the prospective parents. I do not mean their financial position. I mean their suitability to bring up a child in a good Christian home and to train him to be a useful member of our society.
Those are the sort of lines on which we must look at this matter. I do not believe that anyone who has had anything to do with homes in which children

are brought up can deny that the best of all choices for a child are its own parents and, failing that, adopted parents. However good an institution may be, however kind the matron and staff of the home are, the great value of an adoption is that the children are brought up by parents who must have a closer interest in their lives and a better interest in their happiness than can be achieved in the best possible institution.
I do not wish in any way to decry the institutions, because they are admirable, but they can never be a substitute for adoptive parents or real parents. The whole House should be indebted to my hon. Friend for the excellent Measure he has placed before us, which strengthens and improves the existing adoption laws. I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

1.22 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): I take the opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest) and other hon. Members who facilitated the progress of the Bill through its various stages As hon. Members have said, we had interesting discussions on the Bill in Committee. We considered a number of Amendments, but because of the technical grasp of this complicated subject shown by hon. Members, we were able to get it through with such facility.
Although the Bill may appear very technical and complicated its purpose is most important. Nowadays few people would dissent from the view that the law should put beyond doubt such vital questions as the place of the adopted child in the family, his rights and the rights and obligations of his adoptive parents. Legislation over the past 30 to 40 years has achieved this for the child adopted in this country. This Bill will ensure that these benefits—and, of course, the liabilities—extend to matters arising here that concern a person adopted in Northern Ireland or the islands.
We must not be misled by the small-ness of the number of children adopted each year in those territories compared with the number adopted in this country. Over the years these numbers amount to a not inconsiderable total; and we must remember that the matters which the Bill touches are not confined to questions that


arise during the adopted persons childhood. Indeed, I should imagine that its benefits will be felt just as much after he has come of age as before. It could affect all stages of his life, touching as it does all manner of things ranging from his right to come into property to arrangements for his superannuation.
Of course, it is unlikely to have any effect on those people who spend their lives in the territory in which they are adopted. These are probably the majority—although one cannot be sure of this in our rather mobile form of society—but a good proportion will find themselves at some stage in situations that are governed by English or Scottish law. The Bill will, I am sure, be of real benefit and an effective safeguard for these people.
I think that we should recognise also that the Bill is equally important in another way. It is a first step in what we hope will be a much wider recognition of adoption orders made outside this country. The Bill removes the uncertainty about the effect here of orders made in territories within, so to speak, the immediate family. During our discussions in Committee it was clear that many hon. Members were concerned that any doubts about the validity in this country of adoption orders made in the Irish Republic or in Commonwealth or foreign countries should be removed. I should like to repeat the assurance that I then gave that the Government are equally anxious that this should be done

in as many cases as possible and as quickly as possible. But this is a complicated subject and the ground needs thorough preparation.
The best way of making progress is, we believe, by means of international discussion and agreement. As I told the Committee, two international bodies in whose deliberations we are taking an active part are at present considering proposals which could carry us further towards the goal we all want to reach. A draft convention now before the Social Committee of the Council of Europe will, we hope, bring into closer harmony internal laws relating to adoption in contracting States. Another draft convention, which is being considered by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, aims at regulating conflicts of law and jurisdiction in adoptions where the adopters and child are of different nationalities or of different places of habitual residence.
While these international discussions are going on we can take comfort in the knowledge that within the immediate family of the United Kingdom and islands we are putting our house in order. I congratulate my hon. Friend in bringing forward such a useful measure and, once more, on the way in which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) have handled it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.26 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The variety of Private Members' Bills which can come before this House on a Friday is remarkable. Today we have an excellent illustration of the opportunity to private Members to bring forward very useful Bills. My object today is to introduce a small Bill which is essentially non-political and which I hope will introduce a small measure of common sense by bringing a very ancient law a little more up-to-date.
This Bill seeks to amend the Sunday Observance Act, 1625. It may be said that it is a very controversial Bill. I have had a number of letters about it, both for and against. As I shall try to explain it, it is quite clear that the vast majority of people in the country do not realise what the law on this matter is. For that reason I have investigated the matter and am bringing forward this Bill today.
At present it is illegal to play games or to permit assemblies of people outside their own parish on a Sunday. I assume that the modern interpretation of this would include not only all sports and games as we know them, but political meetings, trade union meetings, coach tours and a vast number of other asemblies which one could not easily enumerate. The penalty for breaking this ancient law is 3s. 4d., to be used for the benefit of the people of the parish, or distraint on those persons breaking the law, or three hours in the stocks. If any prosecutions of this kind were undertaken it might be difficult in case of necessity to find stocks in many parts of the country, although I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) still has some stocks in his constituency.

Sir Douglas Glover: Would it be a collective fine of 3s. 4d. or an individual fine of that amount

Sir J. Barlow: I think it would be an individual fine of 3s. 4d. It would

appear so from the Act which I have studied. The object of that Act was to encourage church attendance and the practice of archery. I have not consulted the Minister of Defence about whether he wants to continue this provision or not. Also, the object was to prevent drunkenness, rowdyism and hooligans making a nuisance of themselves in those days.

Mr. Charles Doughty: My hon. Friend says "in those days"; is he suggesting that there is any change today?

Sir J. Barlow: I suggest that there are some changes in some ways.

Mr. Doughty: They have motor cars now.

Sir J. Barlow: And scooters.
I have a rather interesting letter from the historian, Sir Arthur Bryant, who tells me that the Act of 1625 was a
Laudian attempt to impose discipline on the rather chaotic Church of the early seventeenth century—when both the Puritan ferment and rural paganism were the Episcopal reformers' target.
He also goes on to quote from the famous Shakerley Papers in Cheshire, which he uses in many of his books, when he says that the Shackerley Papers show a considerable number of references to the Mayor of Congleton and the neighbouring country gentry playing bowls at one another's houses during the reign of Charles I. It would appear that in those days bowls was the equivalent of tennis, cricket, golf and many other pastimes of today.
Probably the most famous game of bowls ever played was that on the eve of the Armada. The British Fleet was lying up and revictualling and had been a week at Plymouth waiting for a favourable wind to bring the Spanish ships. After dinner one night, Captain Flemyng, who had been out spying in the Channel, came in and reported the appearance of the Spanish Armada. To his astonishment, Captain Flemyng found Drake and his other captains playing bowls after dinner. There seems to be a difference of opinon about the actual words of Drake at this time, but the most authentic quotation seems to be:
There is plenty of time to win this game and thrash the Spaniards too.


This seems to illustrate the unflappable spirit, which I am glad to say still exists among some of our leaders today.
For many years, there has been no prosecution under the 1625 Act for playing games outside the parish in which people live. Indeed, it has been regarded as largely obsolete, but the matter took a more serious turn last autumn when an incident occurred in my constituency. In my constituency in South Lancashire there exists an ancient bowling club at Whitefield, which is reputed to have been formed more than 270 years ago and which has occupied an important place in the sporting and social life of the area. The original club was formed by local wealthy men who played on land which at that time was owned by the Earl of Derby of the day.
In those days, apparently, this bowling club was very exclusive and it was only the rural gentry who were accepted as members. The present club, however, was built well over a century ago and the bowls house is considerably older. The present crown green was laid in the late 1700s on a sand and clinker base covered with the best Cumberland turf. The green is still recognised as one of the best of its kind in Lancashire. This small Lancashire club, which has existed over the centuries, is typical of a vast number of small sporting clubs of all kinds all over the country.
Like most clubs as old as this, it has experienced many vicissitudes. Only since the last war it has had to consider the possibility of winding up because it was so impoverished. Fortunately, it was able to attract a number of enthusiastic bowlers of all classes, especially many working men, who by their dedicated devotion set the club on its feet again. I am glad to say that it is now enjoying considerable prosperity. I wish in every way to encourage this type of innocent amateur sport which the whole House will think to be good for the people of this country.
This happy state of affairs was altered when on 9th August, last year, Chief Inspector Leach of the Whitefield police requested an interview with the club's committee. He told the club's representatives that he had been informed that a bowling match was to take place on the following Sunday, and, judging by previous matches, he warned them that they

would be contravening the law if they charged for a programme of admission, allowed betting and, thirdly, allowed to play people who did not live in the parish. The officials undertook not to charge for entrance and to prevent betting, but said that they were obviously quite unable to meet the third requirement.
Subsequently, the matter was brought to my attention and I took it up with the Home Office which drew my attention to the Sunday Observance Act, 1625, indicating that it had no authority in this matter and that the enforcement of the law was a matter for the police in the area concerned. In the interview between the inspector and the club officials he indicated that he acted on information given, but, of course, he would not say by whom. As a result of this warning, the match on the following Sunday had to be cancelled, causing great inconvenience and loss. I believe that few, if any, further Sunday matches were held at the club last autumn.
In view of this, surrounding bowling and cricket clubs were all rather worried about the possibility of a prosecution, and many other local clubs cancelled matches. Although the penalties involved may be small, people in Lancashire do not wish to break the law knowingly, especially when they have been warned by the police. For this reason I decided to bring forward the Bill.
The suggestion that the law is obsolete and that no one takes any notice of it is simply not in accordance with the facts, as I have tried to show. Some ancient Acts have not been used for a considerable time, but it is well to remember that it was the Treason Act, 1351, which was invoked in the case of Joyce when he was tried and paid the ultimate penalty in recent years.
This raises another issue. What authority have the police to decide whether a law is obsolete? If a law remains in being, it is the responsibility of the authorities to enforce it. If the power of enforcement is optional, the police are given a very great power to which most hon. Members would take great exception.
This matter has been discussed in the House periodically. On 30th January, 1953, a Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker).


The gist of that Bill was very much wider than my Bill. The object of the hon. Member's Bill was to
legalise the playing of all games and the carrying on of all sports on Sundays which are legal on weekdays.
It is interesting to note that on that day, which was a Friday, there were two Divisions at the end of the day, when apparently there were more than 300 Members here, which shows the interest which was taken in the matter eleven years ago.
I have read most of that debate with great interest. I should like to quote a few words from it which, generally speaking, describe very well the views of many of my hon. Friends and myself. They were spoken by the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. My right hon. Friend said this:
I believe that it is only we ourselves who can consider these matters and decide them, and I hope we shall get the choice of deciding them this afternoon. I do not want the major changes proposed in this Bill, and if I am given the chance I shall vote against it. But I should like to see the existing law on the subject made more comprehensible and fair, and certain in its application and, that being so, I believe that on those lines a commission, were it set up, could give very valuable advice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1365.]
Nothing happened for a long time after that.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: To complete the record, would the hon. Gentleman remind the House that, whereas that Bill was defeated by an overwhelming majority, the Amendment I moved to the effect that a commission should be set up to examine the whole law of Sunday Observance was only narrowly defeated by 172 votes to 164?

Sir J. Barlow: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has said that. I should probably have made it clearer than I did, but I did not wish to take too long. The hon. Gentleman will probably agree that that was a very memorable debate for a Friday. Undoubtedly the feeling in the House was that a commission should be appointed, but nothing was done for a very long time. There was another debate at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). He suggested—in this he was strongly supported—that a commission should be appointed. That has all

taken a very long time. So little has happened.
It will be remembered that this broad and controversial issue of Sunday observance was also debated in March, 1958. At that time Members on both sides discussed the problem in its widest sense. It was not till July, 1961, that a Departmental Committee was appointed with pretty wide terms to discuss the whole matter. These were its terms of reference laid down by the Home Secretary:
to review the law (other than the Licensing Acts) relating to Sunday entertainments, sports, pastimes and trading in England and Wales and to make recommendations.
That Committee has been sitting for about three years. I understand that it has done a very great deal of useful work. I also understand that it is not likely to report till some time in the autumn. My contention is that this Act, which has been more or less obsolete for so long but has now been brought to the surface again, cannot wait perhaps another three or four years until a Bill is introduced by the Government of the day, possibly carrying out the recommendations of the Crathorne Committee.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Was the hon. Gentleman a supporter of the setting up of the Committee? Did he support the Motions to that effect before then?

Sir J. Barlow: As far as I can remember, I was not here for that debate. That would have been my general idea. It was undoubtedly the commonsense thing to do. Many people have urged me to wait for the findings of the Committee. I have considered that advice most carefully, but in view of the length of time to which I have referred, I think that it is preferable to introduce the Bill, which I now do, on this very narrow issue permitting people to gather together and play games outside their parish. It is not only playing games. It is assemblies or, as they called it in those days, a concourse of people.
Whilst only the matter of bowls has been raised by me, I ask hon. Members to think of the other sports involved—cricket, tennis, golf, football, probably sailing, and many other pastimes. I should like to encourage amateur sports in every way, so long as they do not


harm the susceptibilities of those wishing for a quiet Sunday.

Mr. Doughty: On a point of order. Are people allowed to disturb the debates in this Chamber by making noises outside it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising the point. I, too, have heard what is going on.

Sir J. Barlow: One must also consider the rapidly changing conditions in the world and the country today. When this Act was originally passed, there were few ways of moving from one parish to another other than by walking or possibly horse transport. I need not elaborate on all the tremendous changes which have taken place. It boils down to this, very largely. Do we wish to live reasonably and legally, or do we wish to hide our heads in the clouds and hope that certain laws will not be enforced? I do not wish to encourage in any way large-scale organised sport, which might easily become the playground of profiteers. If the Bill is passed, organised games for which payment had to be made for entry would still be illegal, and betting would likewise be illegal, so it will be seen how small and narrow the issue of my Bill is.
As it stands, the 1625 Act is a complete anachronism and does not in any way meet the wishes and way of life of the present generation. At present, the vast majority of people completely ignore the law and probably do not know about it. Those who do know about it hope for the best. Both sides of the House, I think, are anxious to modernise Britain, although we may differ in our methods of doing it and in exactly what we wish to accomplish. It seems to me to be utterly wrong to allow an ancient Act which is only partially accepted law to remain on the Statute Book.
Another aspect of the 1625 Act has been pointed out to me by local authorities in my area and by the National Association of Parish Councils. The National Association has pointed out that it represents between 7,000 and 8,000 parish councils many of which have playing fields, some of which are being used on Sundays. Some of the councils

which do not allow games on Sundays do not do so because of the threat of the law against them. Incidentally, the National Association has among its objects the promotion and development of social, cultural and recreational life in parishes and villages. It will be readily seen that in modern times, unless councils allow reasonable use of their playing fields and recreational facilities, they cannot carry out the object which the Association seeks to promote.
I have likewise consulted the Lord's Day Observance Society. As far as possible, I tried to go along with the Society to see if we could agree on a Bill together. It eventually transpired that it was quite impossible for us to agree on a Bill. In fact the Society would agree only to further restriction as regards playing in one's parish, which I could not accept.
Let me turn to the Bill itself. I am afraid that it is not easy to follow unless hon. Members have looked at the original Act. The words that I propose to leave out at present read:
there shall be no meetings assemblies or concourse of people out of their owne parishs on the Lord's day within the realme of England, or any of the dominions thereof, for any sports or pastimes whatsoever…
I intend to eliminate the words "meetings" and "assemblies" so that such pastimes, sports, meetings, assemblies and concourses will be lawful for people outside their own parish. But I leave in these words. It will read:
there shall be no bearbaiting, bullbaiting enterludes, common plays or other unlawful exercises or pastimes used by any person or persons…
Then are added the words in my Bill:
on the Lord's day within this realm of England.
It is a very simple change to a very ancient Act and to my way of thinking it would be a very great improvement.
I should be greatly opposed to changing all our Lord's Day Observance Acts, and there are many sports, so as to permit what is commonly or loosely called a Continental Sunday. Most people wish the Sabbath to be something different from weekdays. No doubt recommendations will be made by the Crathorne Committee and then we shall have an opportunity of making up our minds when we see what wider suggestions and issues are involved. I


wish to emphasise that this small, neat Bill merely recognises and sanctions what the vast majority of people is doing and which is part of our English way of life.

1.53 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise to oppose this Bill. In so doing I am not critising at any rate a large part of what my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) has said and the particular reason that I am opposing the Bill I shall leave to the last. May I point out several reasons, some of which my hon. Friend touched upon himself, why this Bill is totally unnecessary.
In the first place the principal Act of 1625 to which he has referred for has long been obsolete in practice and there has not been a prosecution brought under it, certainly, I think I am right in saying, in the lifetime of anyone in this Parliament. It therefore ill becomes this House to start amending an Act which in fact is a dead letter.

Sir J, Barlow: How does that measure up with the serious warning of the police to a particular club?

Mr. Doughty: My hon. Friend will, of course, wait for what I have to say. I shall naturally refer to the bowling club in his constituency. In fact there has not been a prosecution within the lifetime of anyone in this Parliament under this Act and therefore we are being asked to amend an Act which is dead. In so doing, presumably, we give it a fresh lease of life and probably the net result of what my hon. Friend proposes would be to make the position, so far as he and his wishes are concerned, worse and not better. It does not necessarily follow that the inspector referred to in the interview concerning this very worthy bowling club would have taken the necessary action.
There were three matters which he raised. One was betting and another was charges for admission. That is on a different footing altogether and it does not come within this Act in any way at all. It could well have been that had these matters been raised under different Sections of different Acts a prosecution could have followed. Having satisfied those two important points, I am sure that if the bowling club had sought advice

and said politely to the inspector, "This Act is a dead letter and if you choose to bring a prosecution we shall point that out to the bench.''—to paraphrase the words of the Duke of Wellington" Prosecute and be damned to you "—that would have been sufficient.
I am sure that the Lancashire benches, which have good sound common sense, would have said, "We are not going to pay attention to these summonses at all. To bring people before this court just because they played a friendly, amateur bowling match in another parish on a Sunday is not a matter we are going to allow the time of the court to be wasted on." I have put the preposition at the end of the sentence but probably they would have put it in better English. My hon. Friend in coming to the House and taking up its time in discussing this matter, which is dead from the start, is using a steamroller to crack a very small nut—indeed, there is no nut at all.
If we pass this Bill just think of the things to which one is opening the door. First, we could have a cup final at Wembley on a Sunday, because all the people would come from another parish. Special trains would be run, coaches would come and all the crowd of attendants would be there to provide service for perhaps 20,000 or 30,000.
Because a very worthy bowling club in my hon. Friend's constituency wants to play a match against a rival team in the next parish, the whole position would be changed and up and down the country there would be these friendly matches and rivalry would be taking place just because a few words had not been spoken to an inspector by a bowling club in Lancashire.
I said at the beginning that I would leave the most important point until the end of my speech. Admittedly, we all agree that a lot of Sunday observance practices want bringing up to date. I deliberately use that netural expression because I know that strong views are held on this subject by hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as by many people outside, regardless of their political views. This matter cuts right across party politics and this is certainly not a party Bill.
We start with the 17th century Puritan who was chided for hanging his cat on a Tuesday for killing a mouse on a


Sunday. We have had not one but several debates on this subject in this House, generally on a Friday, on Measures which have been introduced in an effort to amend the Sunday observance legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwick pointed out, we had the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), which was overwhelmingly defeated at the time, and many of us will remember how that Bill tried, in one small Private Member's Measure, to do far too much.
To attempt to amend the whole Sunday observance law in a Private Member's Bill, remembering that this is a difficult and controversial subject, is quite a task, to say the least. I will not express a view one way or the other as to whether the law on this subject should be widely amended. That is a question the House will have to consider, certainly not on a private Members' day, for, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich, that will have to be done with many more hon. Members present than are on the benches today.
I recall the Amendment which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) moved and which was only narrowly defeated. It was an excellent Amendment and if I voted against it I am sorry, because in the interim I have changed my mind. If I voted for it—I forget which I did—I certainly did the right thing. Following that, the Government set up the Crathorne Committee and although I was not appointed to it when it was originally founded—and I understand that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is a founder-member—I was added to the Committee in October, 1962.
The Crathorne Committee's terms of reference were correctly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich and it would be wrong—indeed, it would be improper—of me to state any views which that Committee may have provisionally formed. I can, however, lift the corner, as it were, to the extent of saying that the deliberations which I have attended since being appointed have been amicable, friendly, sensible and of a straightforward nature.
Hon. Members on all sides of the House and people from outside representing a wide divergence of opinion are members of the Committee, which has heard a large number of witnesses representing every form of view—religious, Lord's Day Observance Society, trades, industries and everything else. With the greatest possible respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich, by reason of the evidence which that Committee had received it must have a wider knowledge of these matters than he can possibly have gained from speaking to the members of his bowling society, the Lord's Day Observance Society and others. I say that meaning no discourtesy to him, because he must agree that he does not have the facilities, time or powers to, if not compel, then to see the sort and number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed.
In due course that Committee will issue its report. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich suggested that it would report in the autumn and I will not disagree with him about that. We will see. It is clear that when it reports the Committee will have complied with the order of reference which the Home Secretary of the day gave. It will not only report but make recommendations. At that time it will be for Parliament, when in full session and not on a Private Members' day, to debate not merely the question of games on a Sunday but the whole matter from start to finish. The Government of the day will be bound to provide time for a full debate on the subject and, it being a non-political question, hon. Members will either agree or disagree with the Committee's report.
As a member of that Committee, I hope that our views, when they are put forward, will be unanimously accepted by the House. Indeed, would it not be wrong for the House to reject the recommendations of such an important Committee, particularly on questions which cut right across political lines? We shall see and hon. Members will bring differing views to what will undoubtedly be a full debate on the whole subject. When that debate has been held the Government of the day must bring in legislation, and I hope that it will be on the lines of the report.
One matter on which the Crathorne Committee must report, apart from Sunday entertainments, must be the whole question of sports and pastimes as well as my hon. Friend's bowling club. That sort of thing is bound to come within the Committee's terms of reference. To try to alter the law, and to jump the gun, is, I say with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, a wrong thing to attempt to do in respect of a small bowling club in Lancashire. We are concerned with vitally important matters an amendment of the 1625 Act. which has been on the Statute Book for over 300 years, can hardly be called something of dire and immediate urgency.
A great many other Acts dealing with Sunday observance have been passed since then. When the time comes all of those Measures will have to be dealt with. The Bill which the Government of the day introduces in due course may contain a Schedule of repealed Acts. Perhaps they will repeal the whole lot and pass one Measure to deal with the question. That, in my view, would be the best way to proceed.
At that time the position of my hon. Friend's bowling club will, no doubt, be dealt with, along with all other forms of sport, pastimes and games played on Sunday. I urge the House to wait until the Crathorne Report is available, until hon. Members can debate the subject in full and until we see the Bill the Government of the day introduce to deal with this problem before taking any steps—and certainly not to support my hon. Friend's effort to deal with a small fraction of this matter which does not require to be dealt with because the attempt to deal with it is by way of an entirely obsolete Act. I urge hon. Members to say," Not today, thank you very much".

2.8 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) mentioned that he and I are serving on a Committee which was appointed by the present Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary to discuss the whole of this matter in its widest form. Since that Committee has been sitting for a considerable time, it would be unwise for Parliament to pass this Bill today. It would be even more

foolish to get such a Measure on the Statute Book, for if the Committee is to conduct a comprehensive review, it is better that that review should take place without being hampered by a recent small Measure dealing with a small and relatively unimportant facet of the subjects being considered.
I will not do more than say that I agree with the description given by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East of the; way in which the Committee has been construing its terms of reference and the spirit in which the matter has been discussed. I hope that when the report is received by the Secretary of State there may be speedy legislation to put at rest that public opinion which has been disturbed for far too long; and a Measure dealing with the needs of the twentieth century placed upon the Statute Book.
I was somewhat perturbed to hear it said that there had been no recent prosecutions. Of course, when one uses a word like "recent", and one is getting on in years oneself, what is recent is a very vaguely defined term but, undoubtedly, during the last 20 years, certain police officers have on occasion, when incited to do it, used this Act to harass people who were merely carrying out one of the customs of the day.
I was invited to go on the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Foreign Secretary. Knowing, from past association with him, that he might be associating me with particular views, I said that on this issue I must not be taken as holding the views of orthodox Nonconformity. That is all I want to say about my attitude towards this matter, but I think that to give this Bill a Second Reading, and so start it on a Parliamentary career that might result in its getting on the Statute Book, would not be a public service at the present moment.
I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State can tell us whether it is the intention of the present Home Secretary to consider the report, when he receives it, with a view to early legislation, but if the hon. Gentleman could give an affirmative reply to a question on those lines it would give considerable satisfaction to the people who have been engaged now for some length of time in considering the terms of reference that were given to us.

2.13 p.m.

Mr. John C. Bidgood: I must say, with due deference to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), that I was appalled to hear his arguments against this Bill. Without being discourteous, I have rarely heard a worse argument put in this House. One of his reasons for opposing it was that we were being asked to amend an Act that is a dead letter. I cannot think of a more unconvincing argument than that.
The next thing that appalled me was my hon. and learned Friend's almost open invitation to the members of the bowling club, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) is so concerned, flagrantly to break the law. My hon. and learned Friend said, in effect, that they should have carried on with their arrangements, as he was quite sure that the bench would have taken a lenient view. In such hypothetical circumstances how does he know what view the bench would have taken? I do not feel very strongly either way about this Bill, but I felt compelled to put my view, particularly having regard to the bad argument advanced by my hon. and learned Friend—

Mr. Doughty: My hon. Friend has not the confidence in the Lancashire benches that I have.

Mr. Bidgood: I do not think that any of us has any right to anticipate the decisions any bench would take, whether in Lancashire or any other part of the country. A bench is there to administer the law. In this particular instance, it is a law of 1625, and a bench would be failing in its duty if it did not administer that law.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich on bringing forward this Bill. He has told us that the members of this bowling club were advised not to play bowls in the next parish on Sunday. My constituency happens to be in the next parish to that of my hon. Friend.
We have already heard of the way in which transport has been speeded up. As I see it, in these days of modern transport there can be no conceivable argument that the playing of games on a Sunday afternoon can be the means of stopping people from attending church

on Sunday morning or evening What tends to worry me is that, in common with millions of other people, I was not aware of the 1625 Act until the incident to which my hon. Friend has referred occurred in Lancashire last year. Now that I have had that Act brought to my attention, I must take a serious view of what I do on a Sunday afternoon.
For example, if I decide to take my children to the seaside on a Sunday, I presume that I cannot play ball with them on the sands, as that would be a gathering of people indulging in sport on a Sunday afternoon in another parish. It is no argument to say that I should not be at any risk, because nobody takes any notice of a law that is over 300 years old. Those of us who have any conscience in these matters do not knowingly want to break the law, however old it may be. I am therefore most grateful to my hon. Friend.
I cannot believe it possible that this House of Commons would think it desirable to encourage the view that some laws exist that need not be kept. That would be a serious abdication of our responsibilities. We have another controversial matter on the stocks at present with regard to the wearing of vestments. I should be out of order were I to pursue that subject too far now, but the fact remains that people are being encouraged to ask so to amend the law in that regard as to make permissible what is already happening. But in this case of games on Sunday outside one's own parish we have, I believe, a clear responsibility—whether or not the Crathorne Committee is sitting—to make it legal for people to do what they wish to do on a Sunday afternoon in the way of organised sport as long as we do not allow anything with a commercial aspect about it to creep in.
I must, therefore, refer to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East. It is no argument to say that if the Bill were passed we might be seeing the Cup Final played at Wembley on a Sunday. It is no purpose of the Bill to allow commercialised sport on a Sunday, and what could be more commercialised anyway than people buying Cup Final tickets for Wembley on a Sunday? I do not think, therefore, that the case


against the Bill has been put forward with sufficient clarity on this occasion.
I do not believe that devout Christians will oppose the Bill. All of us know that in these modern times it is not always easy to find opportunities to indulge in sport, and most of the sporting events take place at the weekends. I see nothing wrong with this as long as no commercial aspect is brought into it, but surely now that the position has been brought to the notice of hon. Members and we all know that it is illegal for us to go out next Sunday and play golf on the golf course in the next parish, it is up to us to see that some order is brought into this matter.
I hope that when the Crathorne Committee reports it will make it quite clear and will define which activities are unlawful on a Sunday and which are not, because that will help the Government to introduce legislation in due course. As for this Bill, we do not need the Crathorne Committee to tell us whether playing bowls on a Sunday in the next parish is lawful or unlawful. We know that it is unlawful. No committee can help us in that and, therefore, I see no possible validity in the argument that we should wait for the Crathorne Committee to report before we do something about the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich.
I believe that this modest Bill is sensible and that it will offend no practising Christian. It will have the effect of bringing order into the chaos now surrounding an Act which is over 300 years old. As a practising Christian I give this little Bill full support and I hope that the specious arguments which we have heard today against the Bill will not be taken seriously by hon. Members.

2.24 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I listened with interest to the strictures with which the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) began his speech in opposition to the excellent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). My own feeling was one of reassurance that the deliberations of the Crathorne Committee will be enriched by the mature experience of the hon. and learned Member opposite who has spoken in the debate and of my

right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who has had experience in the Home Office and in other spheres. I think that we can look forward to the Committee's report with considerable confidence that the whole matter will be dealt with from every aspect that has been discussed in the House over the years through private enterprise and otherwise.
The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe seems to have a curious dislike of antiquity. His arguments could be applied against many statutes. The mere antiquity of a law is not an argument for its abolition. I can well visualise the situation which he visualised of a man—in this case, himself—innocently going to a seashore with his family and having a customary ball game with his children on a Sunday and being arrested under an Act of great antiquity. But I can also equally imagine the hon Member, if he fell foul of the law and was kept too long under restraint without being charged with a particular offence, calling in his aid Acts of great antiquity and invoking the right of habeas corpus.
Antiquity, therefore, is not of itself a condemnation of an Act of Parliament. I would suggest that it merely means that experience has shown that the Act has been underlined by the approval of most people through generations and possibly centuries. I appreciate that there are now changed conditions, and I am sure that that is just what the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, who appears to want to intervene, will say.

Mr. Bidgood: May we take it that the hon. Member is encouraging my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East when he tells the House that we are entitled to break the law with impunity?

Mr. MacMillan: No, I did not have that in mind at all. I know perfectly well what the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East had in mind. Many cases go to court which simply never get anywhere because the magistrates decide that certain conditions, which of course will be applicable to each individual case, do not justify the full rigours of the law being applied to the person concerned. The hon. and learned Member was depending upon the common sense


of the bench to deal with a case not entirely as a matter of law and its interpretation but having regard to the facts as well, as the courts always do, and should do.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does the hon. Member bear in mind that a prosecution can perfectly well be brought by a private individual as well as by the police and that the bench is bound to take cognisance, and that even though the bench may dismiss the case, this is a complete waste of time?

Mr. Doughty: That is all wrong. A prosecution cannot be brought by a private individual unless the bench grants the issue of a summons, and I think that in Lancashire, at any rate, a bench is most unlikely to grant an application under this Act.

Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe said that he was a practising Christian. We all, at best, are only practising Christians, and apprentice Christians at that, and, incidentally, if the hon Member uses antiquity as an argument against Acts of this kind he might as well use antiquity as an argument against Christianity itself, of which he is such a proud practitioner. I hope that antiquity will not be argued any further in relation to this Bill.
There is a curious contradiction, and it may well be that I am now being contradictory, in the reference to the fact that conditions have changed. The Act of 1625 was worried apparently that people were moving from parish to parish for the purpose of bull-baiting or bear-baiting and so on on various unlawful occasions. But nowadays there is far more movement and there is far more transport available and, thus, more possible cause of trouble. I am not saying that I am greatly concerned about the words "in their own parish". I think that we can readily do without that phrase and I do not think that opposition to the Bill has been based on that ground. I should say incidentally that I have been asked to offer the apology for unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) who would have wished to be here for this debate but has a prior engagement.
The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich said that the House had debated this issue on previous occasions as "a broad and controversial issue". I would ask, therefore, whether it is appropriate that what has always been debated on those terms should now be debated within the context of what the hon. Member himself called the "narrow issue" raised by his Bill. Inevitably there are ramifications and extensions from these apparently simple amendments which will impinge upon other Acts and later Acts of Parliament, including the whole of this Sabbath observance legislation. The hon. Gentleman wants it both ways. He supported the setting up of a Committee with the widest terms of reference to go into the whole position. I asked him a question some minutes ago and he said that this was "the commonsense thing to do"—those were his words—to set up a Committee to go into the whole matter. I would imagine that he would have taken it for granted that this Committee will comprehend the very things he has in mind in its deliberations and in making recommendations upon these and other issues when it has had time to complete its report and submit it to Parliament.
Furthermore, I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would have wanted Parliament to have another look at these questions, among others, in the context of the report when it comes along—in other words, in the wider and more comprehensive context of the Committee's report. I feel that it is showing scant respect to the Committee to introduce a Private Member's Bill at this time in order to bring about changes in the law which, in turn, will have their own effect upon other Acts of Parliament all of them relating to the considerations of this matter which are before the Committee.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman think again about that point, in this way? It is quite clear, is it not, that bull-baiting and bear-baiting were commercial pastimes of earlier days? As I understand it, my hon. Friend is not for one moment asking that we should canvass the controversy as to whether commercial sport should be permitted on Sunday or not. Therefore, is my hon. Friend not right in saying that here is a change where cricket and bowling, if


not commercial, ought to be able to be played outside one's own parish? Does that really contravene the principle for which the Crathorne Committee was set up? Does the hon. Gentleman think so on reflection?

Mr. MacMillan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I indulged in some reflection before I said what I have already said. I am not concerned with the words "in their own parish ". I do not think anybody is, and I hope that those words will not be made an issue today. As to the commercial character of the sports and games proposed to be engaged in outside parishes, or anywhere else, I do not think the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill could guarantee that they will not become commercialised. What game today is not commercialised if sufficient people take part in it?
I should imagine that one of the hon. Gentleman's reasons for his Bill today is that he believes very large numbers of people want this Bill in order to go out and engage in these activities. Yet once they are engaged in by large numbers of people, nobody can say that they will not become commercialised. There is commercialisation on a small scale as well as on a big scale. Many clubs—perhaps not every club—for all practical purposes have a commercial aspect to their activities, even on a small scale—perhaps not the club to which the hon. Gentleman referred; although even it was prepared to charge fees and to allow betting before the police came. If that applies to such a decent club as the club with which I am sure the hon. Member was dealing, it can apply to other clubs as well.

Sir J. Barlow: I should make it clear that this Bill would not allow commercialism to enter into it in the ordinary sense of the word. Payment for admission and betting would still be absolutely illegal under subsequent laws.

Mr. MacMillan: It might still be illegal, but the hon. Gentleman has no means under a Bill of this kind of preventing commercialism developing.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible for the police to know where their duty began and ended with regard to prosecutions under old Acts

of Parliament—Acts which he regarded as obsolete. That surely applies equally to the police in considering whether a particular activity such as is contemplated under this Bill is on a large or small scale. What is large-scale? What is small-scale? It is impossible to define, and that is the trouble. It is extremely difficult for the police to decide what is large or small scale, so that the issue of scale comes into this matter just as the issue of duty under old Acts comes into the comments that the hon. Gentleman made earlier on.
The police have to have regard to an Act of Parliament on the Statute Book. But when the hon. Member says that what it allows is to be only on a small scale, the police cannot have regard to that. There can be commercialism on a small scale or a large scale; but nobody can define it. Therefore, I do not think that, he can make much of a point on that issue.
The hon. Gentleman gave us one example when there nearly was a prosecution or there might have been a prosecution, so the whole thing remains hypothetical. Beyond that particular hypothesis is the point mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the action which a court might or might not have taken. That again must remain very much in the air for all time. Thus, the one example which was given was of only a possible prosecution relating to the possibility of a club having allowed betting, and charging for admission. All that makes the case much more complicated and makes far less effective the single example which the hon. Gentleman has given us of even a threatened prosecution under the 1625 Act.

Mr. Bidgood: I was under the impression that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to a prosecution in recent times.

Mr. MacMillan: My right hon. Friend must remain answerable for what he said. I am not greatly concerned with that case. The Bill has as its main purpose to omit certain words which would have the effect by their omission of allowing
meetings assemblies or concourse of people out of their owne parishes on the Lord's day within this realme of England, or any the dominions thereof, for any sports or pastimes whatsoever…".


That is fairly wide. That is a lot wider than the hon. Gentleman may have wanted us to observe. The words
any sports or pastimes whatsoever",
constitute an extremely wide and far-reaching amendment of the Act. How, within that wide comprehensive range, can he then decide what is small scale and what is large scale, and control what is commercial? This is something on which we would need a great deal more information and convincing argument.
The other point is that in practice—and this is extremely important—the Act has for many years not been enforced. It may have come within reach of being enforced in the one single example which has been given, but there is no experience of actual enforcement for many years. Therefore, there obviously has been no hardship arising from its enforcement, so that nobody has a direct complaint that he has suffered hardship of any kind as a result of the continuation of the Act on the Statute Book.
I do not quarrel with the other provision in the Bill which brings in the words
within this Realme of England
in relation to prohibition of bear-baiting and other activities. I do not think anybody has suspected the hon. Gentleman of being addicted to bull-baiting or bear-baiting, or even less savage sports—if they are sports. On the other hand, I do not think the Bill would cause any great unemployment in the field of bear-baiting or bull-baiting which it is sought to make completely illegal. On that part we have no quarrel with him.
It still remains the fact that there is a Committee going into the whole subject, including the very questions with which the Bill deals. There remains the further fact that amendment of this particular Act would have an effect on other and later Acts of Parliament.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Before the hon. Gentleman goes to his next point, will he help me on this? He has been speaking about the effect of the proposed amendment of the Act. Like many other hon. Members, I have received representations from the Lord's

Day Observance Society, to which I shall refer later if I am fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair. In the meantime, I should like to have the hon. Gentleman's guidance. I notice that there is a postscript to the communication from the Society to the effect that it would be happy to give its blessing to the Bill if the Act were to be amended only by the omission of the words "out of their owne parishes". The hon. Gentleman has obviously made a far closer study of the matter than I have been able to do. Could he explain the effect of that limited amendment?

Mr. MacMillan: I have said already—perhaps the hon. Gentleman had not then come in—that I, for my part, would go with the promoter of the Bill in the omission of those particular words.

Mr. Bennett: I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that, but that was not quite my point. Will he explain exactly what would be the effect of that omission in the context of the complaint which my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) made about what happened in his constituency?

Mr. MacMillan: I should have to study the matter for a much longer time before I could make a speech on that.
As far as I am concerned, I am happy about the effect on the Act, as I see it, of the removal of those words, but I am certainly not happy to accept the whole argument or the effects which would flow from the removal of those words along with the other Amendments in the wider context. Perhaps we come back to that at a later stage. I have taken part in many of these debates over the years.
One thing which has emerged from them is that nobody has yet been able—not even the hon. Gentleman with his one-legged example today which leaves the question entirely in a hypothetical state—to produce any argument to show that anyone has suffered actual hardship as a result of observance of these Sunday Observance Acts of Parliament from 1625 onwards. No one has ever been able to prove hardship from Sunday observance. On the other hand, in the broadest sense, millions of people not only in this country but in other countries have greatly benefited from the pro-


tection which these Acts have afforded. I am thinking particularly of working people. These Acts have afforded an extremely good background to our early social legislation and later industrial legislation.
If there had not been the Sunday Observance Acts, the trade unions, the Labour Party and the party opposite, no doubt, in its more enlightened days would have been shouting for them, vying with each other to push them through this House of Commons. I am talking about the time before the five-day week, of course. Had it not been for the respite afforded in past centuries by the protection of the seventh day, ten more years of every worker's life would have been devoted to work. To put it in another way, because of this protection, in place of which there was nothing else until 150 years ago, the worker escaped ten more years of his life being subject to exploitation by people without a social conscience.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. MacMillan: Obviously, this is a most unpopular speech, but I want to finish soon and I do not think that I can have any more interruptions.
There is no great doubt that, if the hon. Gentleman's Bill is accepted unamended, there will be a great danger of quite large-scale commercialisation. The greater the support the promoter of the Bill claims he has behind him in the demand for this change, the greater is the likelihood that millions of people, not just thousands, will be participating in a serious breach of provisions which have never done hardship to anyone and which have afforded great protection over the years to many millions of people, particularly working people, in this country and elsewhere. Commercialisation is bound to follow.
The lobby behind pressure for change in our Sunday observance legislation has been a powerful commercial lobby interested in sport, entertainment, transport and all the rest. These are not shadows; they are realities. These interests have put immense pressure upon Members of Parliament and others to have the Sunday laws changed, and they have done it not in the service of the individual or individual liberty but simply because they wish to exploit the changes in order to make money.
I have some sympathy with the personal position of the hon. Member for Middle-ton and Prestwich now. Many years ago, in 1938, I introduced a Bill for holidays with pay. It was opposed by hon. Members opposite, notably by the present Foreign Secretary who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. It was pointed out that there was a Committee sitting and that I should, perhaps, in view of that fact, have had the grace to withdraw my Bill. It was urged upon me that, as there was a Committee sitting, it would be discourteous—I was most inexperienced at that time—to press the Second Reading to a vote. In fact, however, we took the matter to a vote and I lost by only one. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will show greater wisdom than I, in my Parliamentary immaturity, then showed and consider withdrawing his Bill rather than put it to the test while a Committee is considering these problems.
A vote today would involve us all in a very odd situation. One would either, by implication, be giving a vote of confidence to the Committee which is sitting on the whole matter, including the points which the hon. Gentleman's Bill has raised, or, by voting the other way, would express a contrary opinion. The whole situation would be extremely difficult.
We have no objection to the omission of the words, "within their owne parishes", and we have no objection to the hon. Gentleman's intention in the provision he has made with regard to banning bear-baiting and all the other things, in the whole realm, instead of only inside the parishes. These provisions are perfectly good in themselves, but the effect of the rest of his Bill is not by any means as narrow as he thinks it is. It would affect all these other Acts of Parliament and would complicate or frustrate the actions of this Parliament or future Parliaments in acting upon the forthcoming report of the Committee, the members of which we all respect, which is now looking into the very matters we are discussing.

2.47 p.m.

Mr. John Harvey: Several issues arise on the Bill before us. I believe in, and would like to see even more greatly encouraged, acts of religious observance, but I believe also that religious teaching itself leads us to


the conclusion, or should lead us to the conclusion, that religious observance must be encouraged and cannot be enforced. The whole tenor of the 1625 Act is to enforce religious observance. Plainly, it is a very long time since religious observance has been enforced effectively. I do not believe that it can be effectively enforced ever again. Therefore, my own wish in this respect would be to see ever greater encouragement of religious observance, but I do not believe that we should do that by shirking changes in the law because we are unduly afraid of the effects which we think that such changes might have in certain circumstances.
Moreover—here I suffer the disadvantage of not being a lawyer and not properly understanding the law—I am not particularly impressed by the argument that, because something which is on the Statute Book has not been enforced for a very long time, we need, therefore, do nothing about legal provisions which we regard as something of an anachronism as they now stand.
I left the House late last night, as did many other hon. Members, and arrived home just in time to see the end of a television programme in which Lord Gardiner, introduced by an interviewer as a possible Labour Lord Chancellor—if, by any unfortunate consequence of the next election, the party opposite was to find itself in office—was advocating the revision of the whole hotch-potch of outdated British law.
This Statute makes remarkable reading, because it begins by suggesting that Sunday observance
hath been and now is profaned and neglected by a disorderly sort of people, in exercising and frequenting bearbaiting, bullbaiting, interludes, common plays, and other unlawful exercises and pastimes upon the Lord's day; and for that many quarrels bloodsheds and other great inconveniences have grown by the resort and concourse of people going out of their own parishes to such disordered and unlawful exercises and pastimes…
That sounds a little more like a football match in South America than the sort of thing that in practice happens in this country today.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I still stand by my agreement with the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) about the removal of the words "within their own parishes", but does

not the hon. Member see some similarity between the activities mentioned in the Act and those that took place at Clacton not many weeks ago, when two rival gangs on motorcycles, organised in a big way, just about wrecked the place? There was plenty of disorderly concourse about that.

Mr. Harvey: But as I understand it, one of the complaints of these young hooligans at Clacton was that because there were no sports or pastimes for them to indulge in—I do not say that this was a valid or a good excuse, but nevertheless it was the excuse put forward—they got into all this mischief.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Am I not right in thinking that the recent disturbances which have been referred to would not be covered by the Bill? Unless breaking deckchairs and knocking old ladies over is a sport or pastime, it would not be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Harvey: All this is going rather wide of the remarks that I wanted to make.
I want to continue to consider what the Statute says. The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend would still make bear-baiting and bull-baiting illegal, and even interludes or common playing. But, as has already been suggested, if we play with a ball on the beach, with our families, or if we play golf on a Sunday, or pay 6d. to play on the putting green or bowling green—and I believe that the case which has been referred to arose in connection with a bowling green—we are breaking the law. We have all been doing this sort of thing for a long time, in one way or another. Is it good enough to say that because we have been doing it and nobody has sought to prevent our doing it there is no need to change the law?
People could seek to prevent our doing it, and dire consequences might follow. I do not know whether hon. Members have considered the part of the Statute which says that
every person and persons offending in any the premises, shall forfeit for every offence three shillings four pence, the same to be employed and converted to the use of the poor of the parish where such offence shall be committed
and, furthermore, that in order to get the 3s. 4d. from us, the
chief officer or officers


shall be able to sell all our goods, provided they give us back such money as they get for our goods in excess of 3s. 4d.
I have listened with interest and understanding to the points put forward by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), but I do not think that we can defend keeping statutes such as this on the Statute Book indefinitely, especially when circumstances have been brought to our notice which seem to suggest that we should be a little more realistic. But I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member about the commercialisation of sports or pastimes on Sundays. Up to a point, let it be faced that the collection of 6d.—or perhaps it is more today—in return for our being allowed to go putting is already the commercialising of a pastime.
But our real concern must be lest football matches or professional sports of any sort should result from anything that, with better intentions in mind, we enact in this House. If we were to give the Bill a Second Reading today I would hope to see something much more explicit emerge in Committee, in order to make quite sure that what we really have in mind are amateurish and friendly gatherings, and not professional sport given carte blanche to do as it likes on Sundays.
To that extent I feel some sympathy for the point of view that if there is at present a Committee sitting to examine the question of Sunday observance on a very much wider scale than is covered by this small Bill we might be well advised, after ventilating our views today, to seek to go no further. There could be something in the argument made by the hon. Member for the Western Isles, that having discussed the matter today we should not necessarily press this Bill through Parliament but should wait until we have the report of the Committee which is carrying out a more far-reaching investigation not into this Statute alone but into the whole complex of laws that are woven around Sunday observance.
I have said all that I wanted to say about my own point of view. I do not want to see anything done that would further weaken the fundamental interest that all Christians ought to have in Sunday

observance. Nor do I believe that we can compel any sort of religious observance. Religions have to achieve their observance by the example they set. But when we consider the wording of a Statute such as this it is a little irresponsible to suggest that it can be cheerfully left on the Statute Book, and that nothing should be done about it. As I have said, however, I would be prepared to wait until the Committee has reported, so that we can consider the whole complicated subject in a little more detail, than we are seeking to do today.

2.58 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I hope that at the end of this debate the House will come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to give a Second Reading to the Bill presented by the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow). I have reached this conclusion for a variety of reasons, some of which have been expressed earlier in the debate. At the same time, I have heard a good many observations during the debate with which I do not agree and which seem to me to be highly difficult to defend.
We are faced both with the narrow issue of whether the Bill should be passed to deal with the problem in the hon. Baronet's constituency which gave rise to the controversy and also with the much wider question of Sunday observance. Some hon. Members have said that we cannot defend keeping on the Statute Book indefinitely a statute like the Act of 1625, which, as other hon. Members have said, has not caused hardship to anybody for a very long time.
It does not seem to me that it is possible to argue that every statute that is on the Statute Book must always and continuously be enforced in every detail and that for that reason the statutes must be changed. That is a completely untenable proposition, but it seemed to be the argument of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood). The hon. Member seemed to be arguing that as he now learned that it was contrary to the law to have a bowling match out of his parish or to play golf elsewhere on Sunday, or even to play a game of ball with his children on the sands, the law must be altered. I do not take that view.
At the same time, we in the House of Commons have for a long time recognised that the Act of 1625 is quite anomalous and archaic and out of accord with modern conditions. As the hon. Baronet reminded us, however, we had a full debate on the subject as comparatively recently as 1952, also on a Friday, when there was a full House and when my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) introduced a Bill the object of which was, in effect, to repeal the whole of the laws relating to Sunday observance. That Bill was rejected by an overwhelming vote of 281 to 57.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I apologise for being a comparatively new arrival, but will the hon. Member go on to explain what Statutes relating to Sunday observance it was proposed to repeal in 1952? That is relevant to the whole context of the Bill today.

Mr. Fletcher: I cannot respond to that invitation, because it would mean embarking on a long digression and it would not be convenient to the House. Broadly, however, the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham was that the existing statutory provisions with regard to the observance of Sunday, based on the 1625 Act, were now completely out of date and largely disregarded, inconsistent with modern ideas and difficult to enforce and, therefore, should be changed. That proposal was overwhelmingly defeated.

Mr. Maddan: Does the hon. Member agree with the view that those enactments are out of date or with the view that they should be retained?

Mr. Fletcher: On that occasion, I moved an Amendment urging the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate the whole question of the laws concerning Sunday observance. As the hon. Member may have heard, my Amendment was narrowly defeated by 172 votes to 164.
I have always been of opinion that this whole subject merits the most careful and authoritative review so that comprehensive changes may be made in the law. One of the most compelling reasons which I urge the House to adopt in rejecting the Bill is that a distinguished

Committee is examining the question and that we shall shortly receive the result of its deliberations and will then have definite guidance about what is required. It is almost an abuse of private Members' time in these circumstances to try to deal with this vast subject in this piecemeal way.
Nobody could pretend that if this Bill were passed it would do anything beyond merely tinkering with a small part of the field. I share the view which has been expressed in other quarters that if this Bill were passed it would not merely meet the specific grievance of the hon. Baronet and would thereby legalise friendly games of bowls in his constituency, and in other constituencies, but it would also open the door to commerical sport on Sunday on a large scale.
After all, there is nothing whatever in the Act of 1625 which distinguishes between commercialised sport and other sport. The Act was designed to encourage churchgoing. It may or may not have succeeded in that object, but it was intended to prohibit, except within very small limits, all games of any kind on Sundays, and therefore, if that prohibition were swept away, it would seem to me we should be legalising commercial football, horse racing, and other kinds of commercial sport on Sunday.
Of course, it may be that that is what the nation wants, but I would have thought that was a very debatable proposition. I think we must await the report of this Committee, and I think the House must well appreciate that there will be very divided views as to what this nation really needs in 1965 by way of a substitution for the Act of 1625. Conditions, after all, then were very different indeed. It would have been true in those days, I suppose, to say that this was a Christian country in which the majority of citizens recognised some obligation to attend a place of worship on Sunday, and that was part of the national ethos, and that was an object of national life which Parliament supported. I cannot say what view will be taken—and I doubt whether any of us can say what view will be taken—in the next Parliament as to the duty of the State to support Christianity by upholding ideas about Sunday observance and which do not appear to be necessary


for the due recognition of the Christian religion, and which at the same time apparently do not find acceptance by large numbers of the community.
We live in a day, compared with 1625, the seventeenth century, when greater opportunities for transport, greater opportunities for recreation of all kinds, have produced a totally different outlook on life, and, in so far as Christian observance is concerned, it is difficult today to argue that the playing of games on Sundays is inconsistent with the profession of the Christian religion. Indeed, it is difficult to argue that attendance at church services is a necessary part of Christian duty when, for example, one bears in mind that there is a growing audience for listening to and participating in religious services on television on Sunday. The whole pattern of life in this country is changing so much that I sometimes doubt whether in 1965 it will be very easy for the Parliament of that day to introduce legislation with regard to Sunday observance which will be acceptable, shall we say, in 1975 or 1985.
After all, this Act has now lasted for over 300 years, and, although it is not enforced, one has to recollect that that does correspond to what has for a long time been regarded as part of our national idea of the English Sunday as distinct from the Continental Sunday, that it should be observed differently. I think that notion is acceptable today on the part of both those who profess the Christian religion and a great many who do not. Therefore, there must be many conflicting views when we approach our consideration of what should be the right way to deal with these problems.

Sir J. Barlow: A little while ago the hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that my Bill would allow the introduction of commercialised sport. I cannot see that in any way. I think it would be quite impossible. My Bill does one small thing; it allows people to play a game outside their own parish. There are other laws which prevent any charges being made or any betting taking place, and those laws will still be in force and will prevent any large-scale commercial sport.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman says that—it could be

so argued—but, as he will have heard during the debate, that view is not shared by hon. Members, nor is it shared by me. I think we must also recognise that if the Bill were passed it might well be interpreted as having the contrary effect to what the hon. Member suggests.
Personally, I do not think it aids the case of the hon. Member and those who have spoken in support of him to say that this law cannot be enforced or is not enforced. We must all recognise as legislators that no law can be enforced if it runs counter to the general weight of public opinion. All laws, particularly laws passed 300 years ago, must have the support and backing of public opinion to carry any weight behind them. That is the reason why there would be an outcry and ridicule if any attempt were made to enforce this law against everybody who infringes it Sunday after Sunday. But that in itself is not an argument for introducing this change, though it may be an argument for examining the whole case of Sunday observance.

Mr. Maddan: Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest that there was an overwhelming majority of opinion against a ballet in Coventry Cathedral a year or two ago for a charitable purpose which was frustrated by these laws?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether there was or was not. I should think that there probably was not. There may be isolated cases in which because of the existence of this law attention has to be paid to it, but they are few and far between, and they are justified on the ground that broadly the principles of Sunday observance still obtain recognition. While it is recognised that the law must be changed, there will be many conflicting views as to how it should be changed.
I conclude as I began, by saying that in my view the compelling reason for rejecting the Bill is that it deals with a very tiny segment of a very large problem on which we are still awaiting authoritative guidance from the Committee that has been set up.

3.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Wood-house): My hon. Friend the Member for


Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) is to be congratulated on his courage in bringing before the House a Bill to amend a Statute which has remained on the Statute Book virtually unchanged for nearly three and a half centuries. My hon. Friend will now be aware that he has perhaps stirred up even more controversy than he expected to when he introduced it.
My hon. Friend has given hon. Members an opportunity for a most interesting debate, and a debate which I think I can fairly call characteristic of the better sort of Fridays in this House. Like all such debates, it has been noticeable for the absolute sincerity—and indeed absolutely equal sincerity—and moderation with which diametrically opposite opinions have been expressed and urged on the House.
First, I should like to say a little about the effect of the Sunday Observance Act, 1625 and its present place in the corpus or our legislation. It is one of the Statutes which is under review by the Crathorne Committee set up in 1961 by the then Home Secretary whose terms of reference I need not repeat. It is the Government's view that it would be both discourteous and improper for them to take up a definitive attitude towards Sunday observance generally, and therefore also towards this Bill, in advance of the Committee's report. My right hon. Friend told the House recently that he expected to receive the report before the end of this year.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked me if I could tell the House whether my right hon. Friend intended to introduce early legislation based on the report. I think that it would be rash for me to go so far as to predict legislation at this moment when we have neither seen the report nor do we have the advantage which the right hon. Member for South Shields and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) have of having some idea of the lines on which the Committee is thinking. We therefore prefer at this stage not to enter upon a commitment in this highly complex and controversial field, and to maintain the traditional position of neutrality affecting Sunday observance until the Committee has reported.
Hon. Members will naturally wish to decide for themselves in the light of what is said in this debate whether to support the Measure now, or whether to await the report of the Crathorne Committee. For the benefit of those hon. Members who have not had an opportunity of consulting the ancient Statute which it is proposed to amend, I should like to add a few words to those which have been uttered about its effect.
The preamble, which is couched in eloquent and unequivocal terms, has already been substantially quoted to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey), and I shall not repeat it. The Act goes on to prohibit two separate types of activity on Sunday. First, assemblies or concourses of people outside their own parishes for any sport or pastime whatsoever are forbidden. Secondly, bear-baiting, bull-baiting, interludes, common plays or other unlawful exercises or pastimes within their own parishes are forbidden.

Mr. Maddan: Does the prohibition of any concourse for any purpose include meetings in Trafalgar Square?

Mr. Woodhouse: I think that I should have to study the text, which is in somewhat ancient English, and take legal advice, before giving a definite answer to that question. If I had to answer off the cuff, I should say that it might make meetings in Trafalgar Square difficult, but more difficult for people who live outside the parish in which Trafalgar Square is situated than for those who live inside it.
I confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich said when introducing the Bill, that the money penalty would be per head and not a collective payment. The amount of the penalty was fixed at 3s. 4d. That is a slightly odd amount, but I am told that at the time of the passing of the Act penalties were commonly fixed by reference to the value of a mark and a mark was worth 13s. 4d., so this penalty was a quarter of a mark. I have not pursued my studies to the extent of ascertaining the modern equivalent of this penalty.
There is further reference to punishment by the stocks. This appears in the side-heading of the Section of the


Act although, curiously enough, there is no reference to stocks in the modern text of the Act. I have with me a copy of the Act in its original form. There I see it required that a person who could not meet the penalty of 3s. 4d. should
be set publicly in the stocks by the space of three hours.
I cannot say at what precise date that provision was repealed. I can assure the House, however, that at least that provision of the Act is no longer in force.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: In my copy of the Act it appears that the provision is in force. Could my hon. Friend say whether it is or is not?

Mr. Woodhouse: Like myself my hon. Friend has a copy of the seventeenth century text of the Act, but in modern texts those words do not appear. The last sentence of the original Act is also an interesting one which may lead hon. Members to speculate. It reads:
This Act to continue until the end of the First Session of the next Parliament and no longer.
That sentence was not finally repealed until 1863, so we have the curious situation that the Act was treated as a temporary Measure for 240 years. One must wonder whether the quarrels and bloodsheds of 1625 were equivalent to those of our "Mods" and "Rockers" and were in fact repeated annually for nearly two and half centuries. I hope that this was not the case because 240 years later the problem appears to have been accepted as permanent and the Act no longer required annual renewal.
I think it reasonable to pursue perhaps slightly more far-reaching speculation about the motives behind the Act in order to assess the desirability of continuing such legislation in the different circumstances of today. Undoubtedly the ostensible object of the Act, as several hon. Members have said, was to prevent the profaning of the Lord's Day, but I find it difficult not to believe that another consideration which the authorities had in mind was simply to maintain a proper discipline among the largely rural and almost entirely illiterate population.
This was a time in the early 17th century when the ordinary labouring man

expected to work from very early in the morning to late in the evening on Saturdays as well as all other weekdays, and Sunday was the only day he had for recreation. Therefore, in regulating his behaviour on Sundays, the authorities were regulating virtually the whole of his leisure hours. This point was made by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and I feel confident that he was right. Because of their illiteracy, the rural population had very few distractions other than spectacles, games and sports, all of which were liable to lead to trouble if high spirits got out of hand and turned to rioting. It is permissible to suspect that this legislation sprang from the profound distrust by the authorities of the uninstructed public.
It is also relevant to consider, especially by way of contrast with modern conditions, the question of mobility referred to by my hon. Friend in introducing the Bill. The "concourses" which concern the authorities today are those of young men and women concentrating from a large area of the country on a few selected places, a few seaside resorts such as Clacton, Margate and Brighton. The disturbances recently caused are a pale shadow of what the 17th century could produce. At that time, the lack of transport and the foul state of the roads meant that the activities of the more boisterous sections of the public were confined to their own, or at any rate the neighbouring, parishes.
Rivalries in sport and games were also localised. It is also well known what strength of feeling these can produce, but in the 17th century these were on a parochial and not a national scale. Indeed, it was only towards the end of the 18th century that even county rivalries in games such as cricket began to emerge, and then only in the narrow confines of a few neighbouring counties in the south-east of England.
Sometimes this had fatal results. Last year, there; was a dispute between Kent and Essex about a catch over the boundary, but it is also on record that in the year 1776 the Kentish cricket team took to arms and shot one of the Essex players. So we see that at the time of this enactment, and even for more than a century afterwards, parochial or inter-parochial rivalries over sporting


events could very easily lead to serious disturbances of the peace.
In using the word "parochial", I deliberately intend to emphasise the important part played by the parish in seventeenth century England, and this is the reason for the form of words in which the Act is couched. Outside the corporate towns, at that time there was no structure of local government as we recognise it today, and in particular there were no rural or urban districts. Instead there was a medley of overlapping judicial and manorial jurisdictions, for instance, the hundred courts, the courts baron and the courts leet, added to which there was the further complications of the liberties and certain special and traditional jurisdictions, such as the Kentish lathes or the Sussex rapes, some dating from the time of the Heptarchy. In this welter, the parish was the one true unit of local government whose activities intimately affected the lives of ordinary men and women in rural England, and no doubt in Scotland, too.
The jurisdiction of the parish was much wider than today, and the various parochial functionaries, such as the church wardens, constables, beadles, borsholders and others, were men of real authority in their own spheres. For instance, church wardens could collect fines of 1s. for absence from church on Sundays and they could spend public money on a wide variety of functions ranging from the destruction of vermin to the removal of undesirable aliens, "aliens" at that time meaning people from the next parish. It was around the parish and the manor that the life of the agricultural worker revolved, and it was therefore only natural that a social measure of this kind should be enacted within that parochial framework.
To come back from speculation about the past to the practical effects of the Act today, I can only confirm, as has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East and by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), that the Act has been generally regarded as a dead letter, and it is by no means the only one. The prohibition of bear-baiting and bull-baiting and common plays has been superseded by later legislation dealing with cruelty to animals and Sunday entertainments. The meetings,

assemblies and concourses of people out of their parishes on the Lord's Day for sports and pastimes certainly take place regularly all over the country without interference. There is no record of any recent conviction known to me and it is very doubtful whether proceedings under this ancient machinery would have any prospect of making any progress in the courts.
As I have said, this is by no means an unparalleled situation. If the Bill became law, it might lead to attempts to enforce not only the residual provisions of the 1625 Act, but also other obsolete laws.
Perhaps I may remind hon. Members that there are a number of obsolete Acts on the Statute Book which are not enforced and which cause no difficulties and which periodically give rise to amusement and entertainment in the Press and in the House. There is, for instance, an Act to prevent profane cursing and swearing dating from 1745 which is still on the Statute Book and which says this:
Forasmuch as the horrid impious and execrable Vices of profane Cursing and Swearing (so highly displeasing to Almight God, and loathsome and offensive to very Christian) are become so frequent and notorious that, unless speedily and effectually punished, they may justly provoke the Divine Vengeance to increase the many Calamities these Nations now labour under: And whereas the Laws now in being for punishing those Crimes, have now answered the Intents for which they were designed, by means of Difficulties attending the putting such laws in execution.…
The penalties were then laid down in terms which still stand on the Statute Book but which would land the courts in some difficulties if they were enforced today, because it appears that a day labourer, common soldier, common sailor or common seaman forfeits 1s., every other person under the degree of gentleman 2s., and every person of or above the degree of gentleman, 5s. Double and even treble penalties are provided for repeated offences. I could add other examples, as no doubt other hon. Members could, of legislation which is still on the Statute Book which is similarly out of date.
I will now make a few general comments on the Bill. My hon. Friend explained very clearly his reasons for introducing the Measure. He told us that in his constituency a bowling club which is of ancient foundation, though not quite so ancient as the Act itself,


was warned that by allowing persons outside the parish to play on Sundays they were offending against this Act. It appears that complaint was made to the police by a private individual who wished to remain anonymous. One can only speculate on his motives for anonymity.
The police passed on the complaint to the club without making any attempt to enforce the Act. I think that my hon. Friend was guilty of a mild exaggeration when he spoke of this as a serious warning. It is certainly not for me to comment on the actions of the police in enforcing legislation, whether active or defunct. In this case the chief inspector to whom my hon. Friend referred appeared to behave in a very reasonable manner.

Sir J. Barlow: This warning had to be taken in a responsible way. It was made in a serious way. The chief inspector apparently knew that it would mean a cancellation of matches. They discussed the three points. The committee said that they could stop charging for admission and betting. The chief inspector said, "But you are still allowing people to play outside their parish and allowing matches in that club and surrounding clubs to be cancelled because of that." That had to be taken seriously. The club has not great riches. It could not afford to go to court to fight the case, so it came to me.

Mr. Woodhouse: I will not quarrel with my hon. Friend about adjectives. I wanted to suggest only that the police officer in this case did not act in any way oppressively or threateningly. I think that even my hon. Friend would agree that that is so. Naturally the bowling club felt that it was at risk of prosecution and was anxious to put the matter right. Everyone must sympathise with the club and with my hon. Friend's efforts on its behalf. Indeed, there must be very few of us who have not also offended against this Act.
I hope that bowling clubs in Lancashire and elsewhere will forgive me if I mention that bowling has not always been regarded as a respectable game. In this respect, perhaps Lancashire differs from Plymouth. There is a book published by King James I known as the "King's Book of Sports" which enjoined that
for his good people's recreation

after the end of Divine Service they should not be discouraged from lawful recreations but—here I quote the words of the book—
at all times, in the meaner sort of people by law prohibited bowling.
If my hon. Friend were successful in getting the Bill on to the Statute Book—he knows:, and said so himself, that it is a small and narrow Bill—I must advise him that it would not follow that all games would be lawful on Sunday, still less political meetings, but I am not sure to what extent he is right in thinking that is covered by the Act.
The operative Act today in relation to games, entertainments and amusements of all sorts on Sunday is the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, which would not, of course, be touched by my hon. Friend's Bill. That Act prohibits the opening on Sunday of any house, room or other place for public entertainment or amusement to which persons are admitted on payment. I understand that the bowling club in my hon. Friend's constituency at one time made a charge for admission and allowed betting, but these practices have now stopped and therefore it would appear that it is not in breach of the 1780 Act.
The Act of 1780 was amended in 1932 chiefly to allow cinemas and musical concerts on Sunday, but all other public entertainments for which an admission charge is made are still prohibited. These include theatres, dancing, football, cricket, horse-racing and motor-racing. I think, therefore, that I must tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East that the passage of this Bill would not make it possible by itself for the Cup Final to be held at Wembley on a Sunday unless the organisers were prepared to let the public in free of charge. I think also, for the same reason, that the points so eloquently and sincerely made, and which had a good deal of sympathy, about the commercialisation of entertainment on Sunday are beside the point at any rate concerning this Bill because it would not affect the Sunday Observance Act.
I hope that such information as I have been able to give hon. Members about the origin and effect of the Act of 1625 will be of help to them in deciding whether to give this Bill a Second Reading. Some hon. Members, following the very weighty advice of the right hon.


non-conforming and nonconformist Member for South Shields and other hon. Members who have spoken may feel that this is a matter that could safely be left until the Crathorne Committee has reported and its recommendations on the whole question of Sunday observance can be studied. Others, following the advice of the promoter of the Bill, supported as he was by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood), may prefer to take this opportunity of removing an undeniably potential source of irritation and criticism. I would only say that, speaking for the Government, it appears to be a matter of conscience and private judgment in which it is for each Member to decide for himself and on which, speaking for this side of the House, the one assurance I can most usefully give is that however hon. Members may choose to vote, none will be required to forfeit 3s. 4d. to the Whips—still less will the Patronage Secretary seek to divide them into those above and those below the degree of gentlemen.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Any criticism that I and some of my hon. Friends may make of the Bill is made with due regard to the Bill itself and to the possibility of getting on with other business. I point this out to show that our views are genuine. Indeed, some of us have deliberately stayed behind from our constituencies in order to express our views on the Bill and I understand that the intervention of the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench spokesman came when it did only to assist hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, including some Opposition hon. Members whom also may wish to get away and with whom I have some sympathy.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) made an interesting speech. I interrupted him because I realised that he is an expert on the subject. He made only one point with which I would really quarrel; when he referred to strong pressures which existed in commercial quarters to get this sort of legislation amended. I regret he did not elaborate that point for I think I am speaking for all my hon. Friends in saying that I have been subjected to no pressure from that source, now or at

any time. In fact, the only pressures I have suffered have arisen from those who adopt the hon. Member's point of view.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: If I did not speak at length on the occasion in my speech to which the hon. Member referred, I assure him that it was with the object of not defeating his purpose of taking part, along with other hon. Members, in the debate. I would not do any injustice to the hon. Member or the hon. Baronet for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow); but I am sure that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) will agree that on the question of Sunday observance generally there has been a considerable lobby from various interests, both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Bennett: As I have just said, the hon. Member for the Western Isles is much more of an expert then I am and he obviously knows more about what has happened in the past on these matters than I do. It is fair, however, to say that no pressures or approaches have been made to me, even from those who support his point of view.
Although Torquay is a sophisticated part of the West Country, it is still more nonconformist than many other parts of Britain. Certainly the part of the country which is my family home, North Wales, is one of the most strongly entrenched nonconformist parts. I refer, of course, to Montgomeryshire, which would match even the fervency of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In one village there the people not only voted overwhelmingly against Sunday opening but when on one occasion a publican tried to open a pub for ordinary middle-of-the-week drinking, the wives of the village threw so many stones at the publican's windows that he gave up the struggle and retired. It is from that area and places similar to it that any representations I have received have come.
One of the difficulties in which one finds oneself in these circumstances is that I have felt bound to come here today to make a contribution to the debate, although I admit that I am not very convinced by the representations made to me on the subject. Although not feeling so strongly as my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), I will, while


commenting on the views that have been expressed to me about the Bill, try to explain why I consider that the Bill should be given a run.
I have considerable sympathy with those who say that we should get rid of anachronistic legislation and that the only meaning such legislation has, if it has any at all, is that of a nuisance value. Most people agree that once the effectiveness of legislation has gone, that legislation should no longer clutter up the Statute Book.
We hear that a part of the Labour Party's programme is a quite massive cleaning up operation and I understand that the laws of this country are to be sorted out, so to speak, and put in order by the Party opposite. I should have thought, therefore, that there should have been some intrinsic sympathy on the benches opposite for getting rid not only of some of the contradictions in legislation generally but also on the question of Sunday observance. I still think, for instance, that a law at present fines a gentleman 5s. for swearing and a labourer only 1s. 6d. That seems to be the most naked form of class distinction that any party ought to seek to remedy.
I do not think that it is fair to argue that because there have not been many recent prosecutions launched or threatened the law has fallen into disuse. It does not necessarily mean that there would not have been many more if people had not thought that it was not worth while going on with their plans in view of possible action being taken. We cannot tell how many hundreds of times there may have been little committee meetings of clubs, and the like, at which a project has been put forward only to be abandoned because someone has said that they would have to be careful lest they contravened the provisions of this or another Act. The Act may, therefore, be more serious in its impact than we can gauge just from investigating known cases, such as the bowling club one mentioned by the hon. Baronet.
Now that the commercial aspect has been cleared out of the way by my hon. Friend the Minister, the only strong and convincing argument there seems to be against the Bill is that a committee is at present considering the whole question. I do not think that it is correct

to speak of disrespect to the committee, but it does not seem to be sensible, when we have a fairly high-powered Committee sitting, to try to anticipate one particular facet of its work.
I have one fear in that respect. Assuming that the distinguished gentlemen comprising this Committee produce an absolutely first-class report, can we be sure that any Government will pick up what will undoubtedly be a very hot potato? I think that the more first-class the report is the less likely will any Government be to dream of taking it out of its pigeon-hole. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with his years of experience, knows that the Departments are full of dusty Reports of inestimable value which one Government after another have decided it not necessary to implement.
Even this small private Member's Bill has raised much argument outside, and many hon. Members have been present today to speak on it. If that can produce so much fire, what will happen when the full report is before the House? Is; any Government likely to say, "In addition to all the other difficulties, let us now have a real blazing row that raises almost every possible religious issue"? The religious issue would be involved, because a first-class report will have to go deeply into all aspects.
So although I think we ought, perhaps, to leave the matter until the report is in our hands, I had hoped that both the Opposition spokesman and the Minister would have been a little firmer in saying what they will do when the report is published. If we could have had a joint declaration that after the report was published some action would be taken on it, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich would have had no hesitation in withdrawing his Bill. But we have had nothing like that and, as I say, my case is that the better the report the less likely it is that early action will be taken on it, because of the commotion it would cause.
During the day I have tried to clear up one or two points in coming to a decision on what we should do with this present Measure. I have had a long communication from the Lord's Day Observance Society, and other details


have been given to me today by a member of that Society. Many hon. Members have probably had this document, which I have read with considerable care. I shall not read it in its entirety, but there are one or two paragraphs that need clarification either from my hon. Friend or, perhaps from the Minister, if he is given a chance to make a second speech. I should have liked to have been able to speak before my hon. Friend because I could then have put some points to him to clear my own mind without asking him necessarily to express the Government's view on them.
The first paragraph of the letter says:
The stated purpose of the Bill is to remove restrictions placed by the Act upon persons playing games, etc, outside their own parish. There can be no argument about the fact that the reference to parishes, although suited to community life of the 17th century, is entirely unrelated to present-day life in large centres of population.
It seems to me that that paragraph indicates that the Lord's Day Observance Society agrees in principle that some change is necessary, otherwise it would not have included in the paragraph that concluding sentence.
The next paragraph of the letter says:
It appears that Sir John Barlow was prompted to introduce his Bill by reason of an incident which occurred in 1963 in Lancashire, where police authorities warned certain bowling clubs that they would infringe this Act if they held a tournament on Sunday, entailing the participation of other clubs. Although the Lord's Day Observance Society had no connection of any kind with this particular incident, we understand that the police approached these bowling clubs at the same time on other and more serious legal grounds, so that the 1625 Act was by no means the main obstacle to these tournaments any more than to similar tournaments which have been held in other parts of the country from time to time.
I therefore think that this disposes of the argument that this was one of the features which prevented this exercise taking place at all. The Society seems to think that this is a minor aspect. Do I now understand from what my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich has said that the club, having cleared itself on this point, was nevertheless prevented from proceeding?

Sir J. Barlow: I should like to make it quite clear that there were objections on three counts. Two of the counts were done away with. The police inspector

pointed out that the third remained and the club would still be contravening the law if it played the match on the following Sunday.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend. It is useful to have that on the record.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Would my hon. Friend agree that, unless the Bill is passed, if I visited the Balham Club in my constituency and played in a bowls match on a Sunday I would be committing an offence?

Mr. Bennett: I do not think that I can give free advice to my hon. Friend, but I am sure that, as always, he is right.
Paragraph 3 of the letter from the Society says that
The 1625 Act acknowledges important principles concerning the observance of the Lord's Day, the removal of which from the Statute Book would be regrettable and a gesture which would cause deep concern to those who value our Christian constitution. We understand these will not be touched by the Bill but the Amendment as proposed will result in a contradiction of them.
That second sentence seems to me to be self-contradictory, but again perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Middle-ton and Prestwich will be able to clear my mind on the point, if not now then when the Bill goes to Committee.
I am so keen not to waste time unnecessarily that I will refer only to two other small points among the many which I had hoped to raise.
Paragraph 6 of the letter says that
It should be noted that no one is inconvenienced or made to suffer hardship by reason of the 1625 Act and that no general public demand exists for its repeal or revision.
I am not sure how much inconvenience is caused, for the reason which I stated earlier that we do not always know the cases where people have been stopped from doing things simply because they knew of the Act. It is, therefore, not absolutely fair to put the matter like that.
Another point which I have raised twice in the debate by intervention is contained in a postscript to the letter, which says that
…if the Bill were only to amend the Act by omitting the words 'out of their own parishes', we would not object.
I do not know whether that would meet the view of my hon. Friend the Member


for Middleton and Prestwich but it appears that the biggest objections to the Bill fall away if it is only amended in this limited form.
In this matter one always has to be very careful not to offend people's consciences by changes in the law if one can possibly avoid doing so, because the fact that a voice is small and limited is no argument for disregarding it. In fact, it is an argument for taking rather more notice of it if it is not quite so powerful a voice as other sections of the community. Equally, however, there is a duty on minorities to be tolerant towards the attitude of mind of other people. Therefore, on balance I think it would be better if my hon. Friend were not to press his Bill today, provided that the effect of this debate were to make it much more certain than it now is that when the report is forthcoming some definite action will be taken by whichever political party then happens to be in power.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I have had a certain amount of difficulty in following the argument which has been put by the Lord's Day Observance Society, which has been voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) and which was put so eloquently also by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) that this Act could be left unamended on the Statute Book because it is not observed, does nobody any harm and causes no hardship.
I was, I confess, slightly shocked when my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary seemed also to lend his weight to that proposition that this Act, amongst others, is one which we can safely disregard because nobody ever takes any notice of it and it is never enforced. It seems to me that whilst this may be a position which some who disagree with the Act are content to accept, it should hardly lie in the mouth of the Home Office representative to come to the House on a nice afternoon like this and tell us not to bother because we can go on breaking the law with impunity so far as the Home Office is concerned. The question whether or not the law is enforced is not a matter

for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. That is a point which I should like to take up later. The point, besides having a certain lack of logic, is a wholly bad one in the context of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) who introduced the Bill did so—and was able to say so in one or two interventions to hon. Members—because the bowls club in his constituency had been warned that it would get into trouble if it persisted with its project of having men from another parish come to play bowls against the club on Sunday.
It is not enough to say that it ought to have taken legal advice or that it ought to have had more courage. One has to live with one's inspector of police in a small town. If one disregards him one finds that one does not get an extension of one's licence next Christmas. One has to buy far more tickets for the Police Ball, which nobody wants to attend anyway. There are very real inconveniences if one does not in a small community collaborate with the inspector of police, who, after all, has his responsibilities. I think, therefore, that that is not a good point. A warning was given by that inspector who was, no doubt, justified, but it is up to this House to see whether there is any possibility of altering the law or making it more sensible.
There is another point about whether the inspector is the proper person to have issued this warning. No doubt, he has a position to fill, but there is nothing in the Act to say that the police ought to do anything about it. That is easily understood when one reflects on the fact that there were no police in the days when the Act was introduced. Nevertheless, there is nothing to say that the police should play any rôle whatever in this matter. The people who have the rôle to play are the justices of the peace for the counties, the people in the towns such as the burgesses. Upon them lies an inescapable duty to enforce the law. If they do not make sure that everyone who crosses a parish boundary on Sunday—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INCITEMENT BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24th April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday, next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 26th June.

ANIMALS (RESTRICTION OF IMPORTATION) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Miss Harvie Anderson.]

Committee upon Friday, 26th June.

AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEMBER- SHIP? OF TRADE UNIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 10th July.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

MOTOR VEHICLES DRIVING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

SALE OF HOUSES AND LAND (LEGAL COSTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (TRAVEL CONCESSIONS) ACT 1955 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

AGRICULTURAL NUISANCES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (LAND VALUES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 26th June.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY (RESALE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

FOOTWEAR MATERIALS MARKING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

HOUSE BUYERS PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

TRAVEL AGENCIES (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

EVICTION FROM RENTED DWELLINGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

REDUNDANT WORKERS (SEVERANCE PAY) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [14th February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS (REGISTRATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Dr. Alan Glyn.]

Committee upon Friday, 26th June.

LONDON OPERA CENTRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill]

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that when I gave oral notice of my intention to ask your permission and that of the House to discuss the matter of the London Opera Centre on the Adjournment, I did so in an unusual form because I felt that it would have been discourteous to the Economic Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to query the way in which they have dealt with the very difficult questions which I had been posing for two weeks and the way in which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) had joined in.
I felt that this was an extremely complex matter, and that they had dealt with the questions that had been posed quite fairly. The argument really runs counter to our usual procedure in Adjournment debates, when there is a little cut and thrust between Opposition back benchers and the Government over a political difference. In this case there are no political overtones or undertones. In fact, as has been demonstrated at Question Time, in our discussions on the London Opera Centre the line runs straight across the Chamber.
I did not wish to start the debate on any other premise than that there is a general acceptance, between the Economic Secretary and the Chancellor on that side of the House and those of us on both sides who are anxious to bring to light some of the problems that have arisen in recent months, that the general aim is to have a discussion, and not merely an inquest on who said what, when and how. Hon. Members on both sides are most


anxious to arrive at a constructive solution to the present difficulty.
I accept the contention of the Chancellor that, in the main, it is not the Treasury's job to interfere with the day-to-day running of the Arts Council. Most of us would accept that argument. My plea is that sooner or later we reach a stage when the exception proves the rule, and the problem that has arisen with regard to the establishment and continuance of a centre for training in opera in this country has now reached the stage where that exception needs to be accepted, and where the House needs to consider ways whereby the Government can have an influence on the matter.
My purpose in raising the subject is twofold. First, there is a certain amount of injustice about it at present, in that although there are at least two sides to the case—and perhaps many more—in another place it has been possible for one side of the case to be fully presented. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has been able to present the case of the Arts Council, which naturally sets out very clearly most of the facts which the Economic Secretary will have been made aware of from his advisers on the Arts Council.
It therefore seems only common justice that Parliament should endeavour to consider some other aspects, as well as those which have been put before the other place, and we should seek to assist in the formation of opinion and policies which will make a success of the opera school, which I believe to be absolutely vital to the future of opera in this country, and will also make a contribution to opera in the Commonwealth.
I now turn to the background of the present conflict. I reject straightaway the idea that the sole cause is a clash of personalities. My upbringing, in a household of militant suffragettism, enables me to resist the suggestion that there is only one side of the question, that it is a matter of temperament, and that only the ladies have temperaments. We can accept the fact that there has been a certain clash of personalities, but I contend that in most of the discussion that has gone on in public there has been a certain amount of anti-feminist opinion. In effect, it has been said, "What can one expect of people

who are opera singers and ladies? We cannot expect them to be truly rational." We ought to accept the fact that if there has been a clash of temperament it has been a clash not only between the two ladies but among the gentlemen.
I agree that in respect of creative artistes certain problems arise. I have followed this matter right from the outset, when the two ladies—Anne Wood and Joan Cross—resigned from their positions. I was a little concerned when I heard that a Press conference had been called, because, knowing the depth of feeling in this matter, I felt that at that conference a statement might be made which instead of helping to solve the issue might further cloud it. What emerged was one of the most restrained Press releases I have ever seen. It was constructive criticism which was clear and dealt primarily with the problems of policy.
Since I have only 15 minutes at my disposal, I cannot deal with the 40 minutes of discussion in another place. I cannot deal with 13 points on which I differ from the noble Lord and which appear in the House of Lords HANSARD for 3rd June at cols. 509–516. I should, however, like briefly to make two points. The first is the point which has arisen in the controversy that the two ladies concerned absented themselves without notice. This was given as one of the reasons for summary dismissal. I consider this to be absolutely out of keeping with the dignity of a gentleman with so much responsibility as administrator as Sir David Webster. These two ladies are famous musicians who occupied executive positions and are of high status in the world of music. The idea of having to clock on or clock off or having to seek the permission of the teacher to leave the class was rather less than one would expect in this kind of controversy.
Secondly, however, the main theme of the noble Lord's address was that it was too early to judge, that everything has teething troubles, and so on. I cannot answer those things specifically but I suggest that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury should take into consideration that another noble Lord, the Earl of Harewood, who is far closer to the situation and has been on the board and on the previous committee of the National


Opera School for so long, has seen fit to offer his resignation. That contradicts the fact that it is irresponsible to try to take action in the early days of a new venture in the hope that it will grow in the right direction.
There has been a suggestion in the argument that the appointment of a new director is one of the reasons for dissatisfaction on the part of the staff and of those who resigned from the school. I suggest that if the Angel Gabriel had been appointed to direct the harping section of the London Opera Centre and yet was confronted with bad communications and with the wrong building and wrong policies, he could not achieve a harmonious set-up. Therefore, it is important that in the new arrangements the new director should not be saddled with an impossible policy and position. If the thing is to be made to work, before he gets to grips with his problems the policy must be straightened out. It is not fair to the new director if these things are not done.
I take strong exception to the statement by the Secretary of the Arts Council, Mr. Nigel Abercrombie, which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph of 31st May. I have not raised this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it constitutes a breach of privilege, because I do not want to make heavy weather of the procedural difficulties, but as a critic of the Opera Centre I was attracted by the bold headline "Opera critics are warned". It goes on to say that if opera critics are not good boys in future—remembering the part played by the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth, we can take that as meaning that if we are not good boys and girls—the Opera Centre will be closed down. I do not know whether that is an attempt to prevent criticism on the Floor of the House. If so, it would certainly constitute a grave breach of our usual privileges. I do not raise the matter officially, but I object to any muzzling of criticism at this stage.
My second objection in the controversy is to the action of the administrator of Covent Garden when six of the well-known musicians resigned. The Press report which was handed out showed a contemptuous disregard of the standing of these people in the world of music. In suggesting that they could be easily replaced

and denigrating the service which they had given to the centre, it was again an action not consistent with the dignity of the office of administrator of a world famous opera house, Covent Garden.
We have reached the stage where a committee of inquiry has been established. I make the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth that the committee is, unfortunately, not independent. The only truly independent member is the charming Ninette de Valois. Four members of the London Opera Centre Board, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), in paying tribute to whose judgment and clarity of thought I defer to no man, are serving on the committee and the fifth is attached to Covent Garden.
It has always been our principle that if a judgment has to be made it should not only be fair but should be seen to be fair when it is made. It would appear that in this case five of the people concerned will make a judgment on something in which they are intimately concerned and I would ask the Economic Secretary, as this inquiry committee cannot be independent, why there should not be a really independent inquiry into what has gone on.
Out of the present chaos and confusion what we must hope for is some kind of firm policy for the future. I would submit to the Economic Secretary, and through him to the Arts Council, that there are some things which should he borne in mind for consideration. First of all, there is need for the opera school or London Opera Centre to have independence. I quote from the Report of the Bridges Committee which led to it being set up, from page 9. where it is said:
The new school can only attract official recognition and receive financial support from public funds if it is from the outset independent, not merely of existing organisations in the world of opera but also independent of existing education institutions.
I think the need for that is clearly illustrated by what has occurred. The London Opera Centre has not fulfilled these conditions.
There are several things which emerge as important in policy for the future. First, there should be a professional approach and not an academic approach, a kind of opera workshop rather than


an academic school duplicating what is already done by other people such as the Royal Academy. Then we want accent on people, not buildings; more money than the £7,000 for the actual tuition and coaches; to make sure that there is a professional orchestra; to make sure there is a proper opportunity for full operas to be staged by students. A proper stage is needed, and one should be able to produce a full opera once a year in normal working conditions not classroom conditions. This means that there must be master classes.
I cannot now go into the technicalities. A letter in the Sunday Telegraph did it much more effectively last Sunday. It means that there must be a specific techniques practised, not just guest lectures by visiting celebrities. Unless this kind of thing is done and results seen to be achieved it will be very difficult for the students to get grants from their local authorities and for this work to receive the recognition which is needed.
It must have standing amongst its peers—I do not mean members of another place, and I do not even mean Mr. Peter Pears, but among people in the world of music—if it is to attract people to attend the school.
Immediately, the problem is to safeguard the 18 students there. I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with several of the students, and things are not running smoothly for them. They have lost a complete term, although they have been promised that it will be made up, but they are in the first year of a three-year course, and something should be done to assure them that they will not be left holding the baby after this very sticky controversy.
This matter is vital not only for the opera school but also for the Arts Council. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. (Mr. Jeger) for pointing out that there is a peculiar similarity between the troubles which have recently disturbed the opera school and those a few years ago over the Carl Rosa Opera Company. In each case Professor Proctor-Gregg was at the helm. In each case mass resignations followed dissensions. In each case the Arts Council retreated into aloof unconcern, with threats of withdrawal of support. It should be

remembered, too, that it threatened to close down Sadlers Wells and the Ballet Rambert. It failed, thanks to the L.C.C. and public pressure. With the Carl Rosa it succeeded, and the valuable training for opera and the provincial touring of opera which the Carl Rosa company fulfilled has not been replaced. Not only was the professional opera school run by the ladies concerned highly successful, but the gala performance which took place last year at Sadler's Wells was indicative of the kind of affection in which past students hold it.
I hope that we shall not see the kind of comment which I received from a correspondent who is very well known in the musical world—that the forces ranged behind the cultural Establishment are very powerful; so are the forces of inertia and silence which spring from the natural reluctance of those still enjoying Arts Council patronage to open their mouths and risk draining their pockets.
Many of my colleagues have asked me why I have interested myself in this matter. Well, I have followed with great interest the National School of Opera for many years before the absorption into the Centre, and for me one of the great joys of life is music. Dr. Johnson said in another context that hanging concentrates one's mind wonderfully.
You kindly acquitted me of discourtesy the other day, Mr. Speaker, because I have an impediment in my hearing. I am aware that in my case this joy of music is going to be limited by eventual deafness and, like the man to be hanged, my awareness is acute. Although I am personally fighting for the benefit of opera, and I know that my own enjoyment will be limited, yet I must make possible this art for others. I must say that I find opera one of the greatest antidotes to a surfeit of oration, and I shall miss it very much when my hearing finally goes.
When I was young I did not buy discs of the Beatles. The first operatic record that I had was one of Joan Cross's. I and others who first tasted opera at Sadler's Wells remember with much gratitude the pleasure and joy which was given to us by those who provided it. It is these people for whom we are fighting. It is this which goes beyond the petty


squabbling which has been taking place. We hope that there will now emerge an opera school worthy of our tradition.

4.21 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has raised a matter of considerable, though limited—I do not mean that in a pejorative sense—importance which has recently attracted a good deal of attention in another place and in the Press and the country at large. I am extremely grateful to him both for the somewhat unconventional way in which he gave notice of the debate and for the moderation with which he has put the case following from that.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is not here. She has told me that she is unfortunately unable to be present. But perhaps her absence is compensated for in some sense by the presence of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond).
I think that this is a field in which Government interference is particularly difficult, not only in respect of the London Opera Centre in particular or of opera in general, but the whole field of the arts. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a field, too, in which disturbances of this kind are not altogether unknown, and I would certainly say that as far as opera and ballet is concerned temperament is not the prerogative of the female sex.
The Government have deliberately and, I think, rightly avoided accepting a managerial responsibility or even the sort of responsibility that in any business would be taken by a board of directors. In this as in other matters concerning the arts the Government and the Treasury, therefore, are more in the position of trustees on behalf of the shareholders, the people as a whole. The London Opera Centre was set up under a board of governors in what might be called a managerial rôle and under the general supervision of, and with provision of money from, the Arts Council.
I would not altogether agree with the hon. Gentleman in saying that this incident has shown that it is now time for the Government to intervene directly in this issue. In so far as this recent

agitation and the debate in another place and Questions here have had an effect they have achieved the setting up of a committee of inquiry, and, although I am sure we would all agree that the events are deeply regrettable, I do not think in all honesty that they give enough evidence for the Government to lose confidence in the Arts Council.
First of all, there was no question, as has been said from time to time, of this being a sort of take-over bid by the Arts Council, a grab made to suppress a small semi-independent private concern and bring it into the great maw of the cultural establishment. It was, after all, the consumers, so to speak, of the opera school who took the initiative in this. It was at the instigation of the three organisations—Covent Garden, Sadler's Wells and Glyndebourne—and to some extent because of their dissatisfaction, not with the work of Miss Wood and Miss Cross, but with the scope of the then existing organisation for training, that the Bridges Committee was set up. This eventually produced the organisation of the London Opera Centre. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Committee said that there should be an autonomous Board which is independent. The Board is autonomous, and it is independent. As far as the London Centre is concerned, Sir David Webster is responsible only to the Board.
I think that there is some conflict of evidence about some of the incidents which have taken place. Because I do not have time to do so—any more than the hon. Gentleman had—I do not want to go into the details which Lord Cottesloe gave. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, or directly to Lord Robbins, I am sure that the Committee would find everything that he had to say worth reading.
It was not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, a question of clocking on. On the other side, to stay away from work to give a Press conference which is at least mildly hostile to one's board of directors is not a very conventional action to take. Equally, there was a conflict of evidence about the possibilities of putting forward complaints direct to Sir David Webster.
I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not used this debate to make privileged attacks on people


who cannot answer, but has confined his remarks to general principles. I think that that is best for all concerned.
There are, admittedly, difficulties with regard to the building, and also with regard to the facilities available, but I think that it is fair to say that these difficulties are inherent in not having a specially designed and specially constructed centre for this sort of work. Accommodation for this purpose is extremely difficult to find in London, and many of the troubles which have been met in the Troxy Cinema are troubles which would be met in any converted building in the early stages of its use.
With regard to expenditure, it is fair to say that in a new organisation the tendency is for the administrative expenditure to be proportionately rather high until its work develops, when the administrative overheads remain the same and the expenditure on the more productive side can increase.
I deal next with the question of the conflict of policy. There was a clash of personalities, as well as undoubted policy differences. I would not suggest that the change of director was the cause of the resignations, but I would perhaps say that it was the occasion which led to the conflict of personalities and to the differences of policy becoming insupportable in the eyes of those who resigned.
The Opera Centre is primarily not for the students but for the opera companies. It is there to provide what in other countries would not be necessary because of the greater operatic traditions there. In saying that I have in mind the situation in Germany.
One of the students was quoted as saying that a centre of this sort had two functions: first, as a way into the opera world, and, secondly, as a training ground, but he added
much of that, honestly, we could get on the job, if we had a job.
I think, therefore that the need for a centre such as this is due in part at least to the lack of opera performing companies, and it is this which gives importance to its link with Covent Garden and with the three opera companies.
In conclusion, I say that there is no evidence on which the Arts Council

should be so to speak deposed in this matter. The court of inquiry which has been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Robbins is surely independent in the sense that those who are conducting the inquiry are doing so on the basis of their independent judgment, their wide knowledge and indeed their general interest in opera, with the intention of reaching a sure conclusion, and not with the intention of protecting anyone at all.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the committee of inquiry is limited to inquiring into the administration of the Opera Centre, that an unhappy situation has arisen and it is desirable to find why it arose and to prevent a recurrence of anything such as this? To do this one needs a more fully independent committee of inquiry with considerably wider terms of reference.

Mr. Macmillan: Mr. Macmillan That is not quite so. The Committee that has been set up is, as Lord Robbins or Lord Cottesloe stated, very much concerned with plans for the future. The implication is that part of its concern is to see that the London Opera Centre runs smoothly in future and it must look sufficiently to the past to see that mistakes which have been made are not repeated.

We can all deplore the fact that this new organisation has received a severe jolt at such an early stage in its career. Normally there would have been more time for it to be judged, and judged fairly. It is right that Parliament should be concerned and I am grateful to the hon. Members who have raised this matter for the moderation they have shown and the constructive line they have taken, but I suggest that this is not the time to use the Centre as a forum for what we might call the power politics of the arts to be fought out. Nor is it the time to turn a spotlight on this particular organisation, but we should give the committee a chance to inquire, without the blaze of publicity on all its work, to report and then see what happens.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I am profoundly disappointed with the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. He appears to have relied completely on a


brief supplied to him by the Arts Council, whereas it is the Arts Council itself which is to blame for much of what has happened.
The hon. Gentleman admitted that when in an aside he said that there are not enough opera companies. The fault for the lack of opera companies lies absolutely at the door of the Arts Council. If the hon. Gentleman were fulfilling his function as custodian of the arts on behalf of the Treasury, of the Government and this House, he would be instituting an independent committee of inquiry into the Arts Council's working itself.

Mr. Macmillan: If I may, I will interrupt the hon. Member on two points. First, that is not within the terms of reference of this debate, of this Committee or of the London Opera Centre. We are not discussing the Arts Council, and I said that I have no evidence on

which the Arts Council should be deposed. Secondly, on a point of fact, it is not the responsibility of the Arts Council that there are few opera companies but that the demand for opera is not very great. A large proportion of the money spent on the arts is spent on opera. The Government could be under very strong criticism if much more were pre-empted for that particular purpose.

Mr. Jeger: In reply to that last point about the amount spent on opera, is it not concentrated in a few towns, and, therefore, a touring company such as the Carl Rosa had to close down because support was withdrawn by the Arts Council? If there is more demand for opera, the Treasury should be inquiring into the activities of the Arts Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock.